From: Emily Winch (emily_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-19 02:25:23
>But if auto is to remain a storage class specifier you couldn't use
>it to declare functions. So either auto's meaning needs to be
>explicitly changed, or you would need to use extern or static instead.
>I doubt too many (if any) people still use 'auto' these days, but
>there is a potential danger in taking an already well defined keyword
>and changing it to mean something else.
I think auto's meaning has to be explicitly overloaded anyway. What if you
want to deduce the type of a static variable
static auto foo = complicated_thing<x, y, z>::type;
? This is illegal at the moment even if we add a type ("static auto
However, as far as I can see (probably not that far :) ) using auto to
declare functions doesn't invalidate or change the meaning of any existing
correct syntax. Where's the danger?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk