On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 4:42 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday 2014-10-01 16:24 -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > Obviously, if you have some argument that auto is bad programming > practice > > or a hazard and should thus be forbidden, that's something you could make > > and > > see if people generally agree... > > I think there are cases where |auto| makes code substantially less > readable, and cases where it's fine. I don't think I have enough > experience reading code using |auto| to say exactly what's in which > set, but I have mandated less use of |auto| in code reviews. > > Some of it is simple readability; there are cases where seeing the > type of a variable allows its name to be simpler while preserving > the same level of readability, and if we're going to hide the type, > I'd want it to have a more complex name to make the code obvious. > > But I'm also worried about use of auto leading people to stop using > const or & where they should be (particularly where |auto| instead > of |const auto&| leads to unnecessary expensive copies). (And I > think knowing whether I want |auto| or |const auto&| requires > knowing the type, which makes the feature less valuable to me.) > > I'm fine with just enforcing reasonable judgment in code reviews, > although I suspect some people would be bothered by having code > reviewers enforce style rules that aren't written down. > Yes this all seems reasonable. FWIW, here's the Google guidance. http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.html#auto -Ekr _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
