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

Marc Mutz marc.mutz at kdab.com
Fri Dec 4 19:30:10 CET 2015

On Friday 04 December 2015 14:32:22 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > But auto is still staticaly typed.
> >
> > 
> that's why using a scripting language as a source of arguments wasn't a
> very wise move tactically, even as an aside. ;)

I, indeed, did not anticipate that anyone here would be able to seriously 
confuse static typing and var/auto, the omitting of the type name in variable 

I have the feeling I wasn't wrong, though.

Marc Mutz <marc.mutz at kdab.com> | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company
Tel: +49-30-521325470
KDAB - The Qt Experts

More information about the Development mailing list