Re:Don’t use C++ auto? Restricting auto is not the best deci...
by cjensen on Thursday November 09, 2017 @11:05AM
(#15663493)
That was an entirely different auto. In C89, auto just "variable on the stack". It still had a type. The new auto is just borrowing the keyword since it (a) makes sense and (b) is already a reserved word.
Re:Don’t use C++ auto? Restricting auto is not the best deci...
by pjmlp on Thursday November 09, 2017 @11:10AM
(#15663539)
How the keyword was named when Bjarne introduced it doesn't matter, the purpose was the same as C++11 auto.
Re:Don’t use C++ auto? Restricting auto is not the best deci...
by Shorel on Thursday November 09, 2017 @12:42PM
(#15664271)
It was entirely another concept.
Before C++11 auto meant it was not static, extern or register, and in fact every single variable was already implicitly auto if no specifier from the previous list was applied.
int n = 10;
In that line, n was auto. Now it is not auto, only int.
Re:Don’t use C++ auto? Restricting auto is not the best deci...
by pjmlp on Thursday November 09, 2017 @12:48PM
(#15664312)
Type inference is orthogonal to whatever keyword is used.
Bjarne used another keyword in C with Classes, removed it due to backslash, and the commite decided to re-purpose auto for the same purpose in C++11.
No big deal, the meaning of static is also context dependent, and no one is fighting against it like it happens with the new meaning for auto.
It was, but the backslash was even greater back then, so Bjarne removed it from C with Classes.
There are a few presentations/interviews where he mentions it.