On Monday, 30 April 2018 at 21:11:07 UTC, Gerald wrote:
I'll freely admit I haven't put a ton of thought into this post
(never a good start), however I'm genuinely curious what
people's feeling are with regards to the auto keyword.
Speaking for myself, I dislike the auto keyword. Some of this
is because I have a preference for static languages and I find
auto adds ambiguity with little benefit. Additionally, I find
it annoying that the phobos documentation relies heavily on
auto obscuring return types and making it a bit more difficult
to follow what is happening which gives me a bad taste for it.
clip
So I'm curious, what's the consensus on auto?
As some have pointed out, it certainly has value. For example, in
functions returning ranges, etc. where you wouldn't want to have
to write out the whole type.
However, as an infrequent D user I admit I prefer to see the
actual type where it is feasible, as I find 'auto' is a barrier
to understanding to someone who isn't familiar with a particular
piece of code. I would never use auto in place of a basic type.
