[Development] RFC: more liberal 'auto' rules?

Koehne Kai Kai.Koehne at theqtcompany.com
Fri Dec 4 13:38:13 CET 2015

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Development [mailto:development-bounces at qt-project.org] On Behalf
> Subject: [Development] RFC: more liberal 'auto' rules?
> The remainder of the C++ world is moving towards an "always auto" scheme.
> We don't need to go there, but I'd at least like to propose, for new code and as
> a drive-by, the *required* use of auto for:
> <snip>

Just want to comment on this argument ...

I know that some influential members are suggesting the AAA (almost always auto), 
but I think it's a bit overboard to claim that this is "the C++ world".

Take for instance the coding guidelines of Clang:


Or google:


Even the C++ core guidelines don't explicitly say 'use auto always', but only to avoid redundant repetition of type names:


So I think the ruling is still out whether the "AAA style" is really picked up by a lot of projects.



More information about the Development mailing list