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

Oswald Buddenhagen oswald.buddenhagen at theqtcompany.com
Mon Dec 7 13:16:14 CET 2015


On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 02:05:38PM +0100, Marc Mutz wrote:
> On Monday 07 December 2015 12:23:41 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 10:29:09PM +0100, Marc Mutz wrote:
> > > On Friday 04 December 2015 19:06:51 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > 
> > > Again: I was referring to the omission of any form of type name when
> > > declaring variables. That Python is _also_ dynamically typed is
> > > correct, but irrelevant.
> > 
> > then maybe you want to explain how you want to implement auto
> > *everywhere* without going dynamic. until you provide a credible answer
> > to that, your "aside" is patently irrelevant. hint: c# type inference
> > does *not* provide that answer.
> 
> I have explained it as good as I can. If you can or do not want to understand, 
> then I'm sorry that I cannot explain it so you understand.
> 
have you considered the possibility that *you* are the one who's not
getting the point? you have not provided *any* sensible argument to
refute my claim that your analogy is fucked. you just keep repeating
the obvious.



More information about the Development mailing list