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

[Olivier Goffart]

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()));