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

[Rolland Dudemaine]

>> Are these cases something we can agree upon?
> Too little, imho. If we continue at this speed (one week for 1.5 more use-
> cases of an already-allowed feature), then we're going to be done with C++11 
> when C++22 is out.

If I may ask, what is wrong with not using features of a language?

I've always been a fan of Qt, not because of its conciseness,
portability, versatility (although these help), but really because a C++
beginner, a seasoned C engineer unfamiliar with C++, and several other
non-expert types can read and understand the Qt API, and also write
basic applications.

Preaching pragmatism, I'd happily vote for "what's convenient" inside
the Qt implementation, but also vote against the C++11-ification of the API.

Rolland

----------------------------------------------------------
Rolland Dudemaine               tel direct:+33 143 143 702
Green Hills Software                   tel:+33 143 143 700
4 rue de la Pierre Levee            mailto:rolland at ghs.com
75011 Paris                           fax: +33 143 143 707
France                             web: http://www.ghs.com
----------------------------------------------------------