On Thu, 16 Jan 2020, 22:46 Kai Uwe Broulik, <k...@privat.broulik.de> wrote:
> > > Well, the * is completely redundant in those cases, so it doesn't bring > anything. > > I'd be tempted to say, let's not require it. > > But then it raises the question of consistency (without a guideline, > we'll have some places with * and some places without *). > > It provides useful visual information. > > auto foo = bar(); > auto baz = &bla; > Neither of those examples abide by the proposed Qt/Vlad rules, which I think would render your issue moot. I don't think I really understand your potential issue anyway, if you tried to use baz form and it wasn't the type I expected it just wouldn't compile? This is somewhat different to the case where have you have overloaded & and non& operators, such as [] where I do I understand why it's useful. I'll continue mandating that in code I maintain, even if it's not > official policy. > The context of this original email being sent was that I got extremely frustrated with per-project seemingly random rules. I can happily follow a global policy even if I don't agree with it, but we need to define things. Otherwise, we'll end up in this situation again. David
