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

Olivier Goffart olivier at woboq.com
Fri Dec 4 14:25:14 CET 2015

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


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();

More information about the Development mailing list