Boost logo

Boost :

From: mfdylan (dylan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-18 17:43:21

--- In boost_at_y..., "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_m...> wrote:
> From: "Daniel Frey" <daniel.frey_at_a...>
> >>>
> IMHO the question is: If we have your typeof, can we write a class
> 'auto' that doesn't require any further language support?
> <<<
> No, but we can write a macro. ;-)
> Frankly, I see nothing wrong with 'let', or 'auto', or 'dcl', or
however it
> ends up (hopefully) being called. Why should we try to achieve the
> effect with some other means? There's no point.

Presumably though it would only be auto for auto
could also use register or static if you so wanted.
Essentially this is reintroducing implicit typing that was present in
C89 (although of course it was always int). Unfortunately a large
number of C++ compilers still support it as int but I would hope this
wouldn't cause too many confusion.

I would against be introducing either 'let' or 'dcl' as keywords, I
know I have used both those as variable names at some point in the
past, even though most of work (dictacted by company policy) uses
uppercase letters in variable names.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at