On 03/05/2014 11:12 AM, Poenitz Andre wrote: > Ziller Eike wrote: >> One rule for using “auto” that I’d like to establish, is to use it only >> “when the type is obvious when reading the code”. >> Of course what that exactly means should be discussed and shown in some >> examples, and then it’s still up for interpretation. >> E.g.: >> >> Yes: >> >> auto f = new FooBar; >> auto a = new A; >> auto myAction = menu->addAction(…); >> auto it = list.const_iterator(); >> >> No: >> >> auto i = 4; // the difference between “4;” and “4.;” is subtile with big >> consequences > > What is obvious for some might unfortunately not be so obvious for others. > >>From the list of "Yes" cases I only fully agree with "auto it = >>list.const_iterator();" > > I'd actually like to restrict the use of auto to cases where it > "significantly" reduces > typing and line noise (say, identifiers longer than x chars, and to cases > where > it doesn't change meaning.
On the other hand, patches that change types in function signatures will potentially get much smaller if "auto" is used extensively. For instance, if you take a look at the "QString -> Core::Id" or "QString -> Utils::FileName" patches, you will notice that quite a number of hunks would disappear entirely. In general, it seems to me that using "auto" is sensible when assigning the result of a function call, as the type is already specified. Christian _______________________________________________ Qt-creator mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator
