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

[Bubke Marco]

Clazy is nice but it's under GPL so it's not possible to integrate it in the creator clang code model. But I think we need something like clazy for the clang code model too.

________________________________________
From: Development <development-bounces at qt-project.org> on behalf of Giuseppe D'Angelo <giuseppe.dangelo at kdab.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 11:59 AM
To: development at qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] RFC: more liberal 'auto' rules?

Il 22/12/2015 11:26, Ziller Eike ha scritto:
> So funny/unwanted behavior can occur both because one used the wrong explicit type, and because one used auto instead of an explicit type.

These shortcomings of auto are recognized in the community, but yes,
they're real and dangerous. Clazy [1] already has a warning for the
danger of auto with QStringBuilder, I guess it can be extended to other
cases.

N4035 [2] proposes general purpose workarounds ("operator auto",
specializations to std::decay, etc.) to address these issues.

> [1] https://github.com/KDE/clazy/blob/master/README
> [2] http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4035.pdf

My 2 c,
--
Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dangelo at kdab.com | Software Engineer
KDAB (UK) Ltd., a KDAB Group company | Tel: UK +44-1625-809908
KDAB - The Qt Experts