Re: [boost] Re: More on auto

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-22 08:09:07

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: More on auto

> From: "brianjparker" <brianjparker_at_[hidden]>
> > --- In boost_at_y..., "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_m...> wrote:
> > > From: "Fernando Cacciola" <fcacciola_at_g...>
> > > > I don't think that the very small increased complexity of
> > requiring auto
> > > > declarations to have a type name are not worth the increased
> > safety.
> > > > Don't you think it does improves safety a lot?
> > >
> > > No, actually, I don't. Partly because the right time to use auto
> > > declarations is exactly when the actual type doesn't matter, and
> > partly
> > > because I don't see how requiring a dummy identifier would improve
> > safety
> > > somehow.
> >
> > Having the deduced type available is essential for functionality
> > reasons as well as type safety improvements.
>
> It's simple. When the deduced type is important, use a function template.
> Otherwise, use an autodeclaration.

Of course, if we have typeof(), we can discover the identity of any
autodeduced type.