On 06/08/2015 03:12 PM, ketmar wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 13:38:08 +0200, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 06/08/2015 09:30 AM, ketmar wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 18:50:07 +0200, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 06/06/2015 08:10 AM, ketmar wrote:
if `auto` can play a role of type placeholder
There is no such thing as a type placeholder.
there is:
`immutable auto` -- ok `immutable const` -- not ok
ergo, `auto` is not a storage class, but type placeholder.
This analogy does not work. 'immutable' and 'automatic storage' do not
conflict. 'immutable' and 'const' do conflict.
'immutable auto' is exactly the same as 'auto immutable'. There is no
'int immutable'.
ok. what that "automatic storage" means after all?
For all practical and theoretical purposes, it means absolutely nothing.
except being a placeholder.
It indicates to the parser that what follows is a declaration. Nothing
more. It does not hold the place of anything else.
