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

Matthew Woehlke mwoehlke.floss at gmail.com
Tue Dec 29 18:47:41 CET 2015

On 2015-12-26 20:17, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> And what is hard to parse for humans? The "char* p,q" "issue"? That's a 
> formatting bug then, this ought to be written "char *p, q", which makes it 
> very clear what is going on.

That's... debatable. Personally, I dislike combining names and type
information. And it doesn't always work out so nicely. What, for
example, is the type of 'q' here?:

  char const* const *p, q;

Explicit pointer/reference types and multiple declarations should simply
not appear in the same statement¹. Period.


More information about the Development mailing list