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

Matthew Woehlke mwoehlke.floss at gmail.com
Wed Dec 9 16:02:01 CET 2015

On 2015-12-09 07:18, Knoll Lars wrote:
> For loop variables, I don’t think we should require ‘auto’. Using it
> can be the right thing to do in some cases, esp when using patterns
> like ‘for(auto item: items)’ , but when looping using integer
> indices, I still prefer ‘for (int i=...; cond; ++i)’.

For the record, while I still think 'for (auto const i :
qIndexRange(list.count()))' is better, my objection here isn't so much
to failing to mandate 'auto' in such cases as forbidding it entirely in
such cases. Especially if there ever does end up being code in Qt
operating on STL objects where the correct type is something esoteric
like 'std::vector::size_type'.


More information about the Development mailing list