Hi Bernhard, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot....@gmail.com> writes:
> From a very distant POV this auto sounds really like an ugly bandaid and I, > personally would have used a conditional in place argument. auto is really > like > c++ didn't have the guts to go straight to implicit typed LHS like python et > al > nor to learn from Fortran's IMPLICIT defaults from some 60 years ago by now > (which might have made sense on punchcards, but IMHO not so much nowadays, at > least in the light of multi lingual people). > > The real change does sound plausible, but I didn't really look closely. All > in all, not even a comment ;-) This actually preceded significantly more complex code in my original revision, which got simplified by a good bit by the time I sent it out. I didn't really feel the need to make the parameter inline since it would only prolong the line here, I think. I'm fine with doing that too, though. I don't think there's any ban on auto across the codebase either, which is why I initially used it. I think C++ is significantly helped by auto, since there's no need to be specific with types in most places, as long as they can still be deduced from context, and I think that property holds here. An alternative universe with fancier implicit typing does sound nice, though :D As for the change, AFAICT, the code before and after the change still produces the same symbols, so I think it should be generally fine across the board, just that this time around we don't need the mangler when it isn't used. Thanks for the review, and have a wonderful day. -- Arsen Arsenović
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
