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

Oswald Buddenhagen oswald.buddenhagen at theqtcompany.com
Wed Dec 9 11:00:48 CET 2015

On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 08:43:53PM +0100, Marc Mutz wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 December 2015 15:52:06 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > your triple emphasis that it's not necessary *anywhere* in python
> > implied that you do indeed mean more than just locals.
> Only for someone who chimes in on a side-line without having read the
> thread's first mail...
actually, it's quite reasonable to take someone by their word when they
make such an effort to emphasize it without further qualification.

> I don't *care* whether it's "var" or no keyword or JS variant or
> _whatever_. I said it's about the omission of the _type name_.
you're still not getting it. python's property of omitting the type name
is *inherently* linked to it being dynamic. it's *meaningless* to
compare the two. you're essentially arguing that auto is *just* like
QVariant because it shares some of the visible properties. how is that
an argument for *anything*?

> You deliberately misunderstand and drag this subthread on and then
> zoom in on the first slip of mine. That's trolling at it's worst.
i didn't misunderstand anything (deliberately or not), and didn't
present it as such, either. all i did was pointing out that the analogy
wasn't that apt, and that your "joke" actually backfired. *you* dragged
it out by deciding to treat me like an idiot instead of trying to
understand and acknowledge the point (however trivial you may find it).

> > so let's state the purpose even more clearly: i'm giving you a lesson.
> I should have known.... tr(Besserwisser).
i'm sure the irony of *you* saying that is momentarily lost on you.

More information about the Development mailing list