From my discussion with C++ folk, auto is just part of the “modern” way of doing c++. Paired with the -> return type. Perhaps including that -> return type negates this problem? It’s still strange to me. Feels more like Rust
I think you’re conflating regular auto use with using it as a return type/argument. The latter is syntactic sugar for declaring a template. It isn’t any less “documented” than doing a template<classReturnType>....
Having the return type name is absolutely better documented. But I guess were splitting hairs because its a hard typed language and lexers can find what it is anyway.
Why the fuck do people do this to themselves.
From my discussion with C++ folk, auto is just part of the “modern” way of doing c++. Paired with the -> return type. Perhaps including that -> return type negates this problem? It’s still strange to me. Feels more like Rust
One day the use of
autowill grow so extensive that modern Python code will have more type annotations than modern C++ code!Do what? Use auto? As I understand that is just an alternative to templates for trivial cases.
Nuter one of the main reasons for headers: documentation.
I think you’re conflating regular auto use with using it as a return type/argument. The latter is syntactic sugar for declaring a template. It isn’t any less “documented” than doing a
template<class ReturnType>....Having the return type name is absolutely better documented. But I guess were splitting hairs because its a hard typed language and lexers can find what it is anyway.