On Friday 4. December 2015 15:39:01 Curtis Mitch wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Development [mailto:development-boun...@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of > > Olivier Goffart > > Sent: Friday, 4 December 2015 2:25 PM > > To: development@qt-project.org > > Subject: Re: [Development] RFC: more liberal 'auto' rules? > > > > On Friday 4. December 2015 14:11:48 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 02:07:10PM +0100, Marc Mutz wrote: > > > > And as an aside, since it has been mentioned in this thread: in > > > > Python _all_ variables are 'auto'. All. Without exception. Are > > > > Python programmers more intelligent? Or do they just tolerate more > > > > pain? :) > > > > > > i'd suggest the latter. > > > no, really. people use external static checkers because the language > > > lacks the feature. > > > the lack of static typing is a common feature of scripting languages > > > and makes them convenient to a degree, but it is an utter nightmare > > > for any "real" software development. i really wouldn't want to go there. > > > > But auto is still staticaly typed. > > > > > > When you have code like > > > > foo->bar()->setFaz(m_factory->createFaz(foo->bar()->type())); > > > > You don't see any type. > > > > This code that use auto is not less readable. Even if you don't know > > what's the type of bar without looking it up. > > > > auto *bar = foo->bar(); > > bar->setFaz(m_factory->createFaz(bar->type())); > > Isn't this kind of a bad example, because there was no type declared/visible > in the first place?
Precisely my point! There is no type visible before and nobody complains. So why should one suddenly complains there are no types in the second snippet > Anyway, if you're going to take the time to move the result of foo->bar() > onto its own line, why not just declare a type? What benefit does auto give > here? > > I really dislike hiding types behind a generic keyword. Because the type is redundent and it's one reason less to make errors: Using 'int' instead of 'quint64' or 'size_t', or QString instead of QByteArray is way to frequent. (and the compiler won't complain) It is also refactoring-proof. Because you might want to change the name of the type from "FazManager" to "FazHolder", and then you need to touch less code in your refactoring. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
