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

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 07:30:10PM +0100, Marc Mutz wrote:
> 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 
> declarations.
> 
it's not that anyone is confused, it's that your "aside" was inherently
flawed: variables in python are dynamically typed, so the suggestion
that they are "auto" in any way related to c++ makes no sense
whatsoever. my response aimed merely at showing that even your little
"joke" was off.

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