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

[Knoll Lars]

On 09/12/15 11:00, "Development on behalf of Oswald Buddenhagen" <development-bounces at qt-project.org on behalf of oswald.buddenhagen at theqtcompany.com> wrote:

>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.

And I’d say it’s about time to stop that particular sub-thread. It’s neither productive nor leading anywhere.

Thanks,
Lars