On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 4:07 PM, smaug <sm...@welho.com> wrote:
> On 11/28/2017 12:53 AM, Jeff Gilbert wrote:
>
>> ranged-for issues are the same as those for doing manual iteration,
>>
> It is not, in case you iterate using
> for (i = 0; i < foo.length(); ++i)
> And that is the case which has been often converted to ranged-for, with
> bad results.
>
> And auto makes code reading harder. It hides important information like
> lifetime management.
> It happens easily with auto that one doesn't even start to think whether
> nsCOMPtr/RefPtr should be used there.
>
This statement seems perhaps a touch to universalist; it may be the case
that it makes it harder for *you* to read, but I find it makes it easier
for me to read. I also don't think it's a coincidence that it's a common
feature of modern languages (Rust and Go, to name just two), so I suspect
I'm not alone in thinking auto is a good thing.
As for the lifetime question, can you elaborate on the scenario you are
concerned about. Is it something like:
T *foo() {
return new T();
}
void bar() {
auto t = foo();
}
Where you think that t should be assigned to a smart pointer? (Obviously,
there are ways for this to cause UAF as well, though this one is a leak).
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
