> auto main(int argc, char argv) -> int
What a horrible abuse of C++11 auto function declarations.
What a horrible abuse of C++11 auto function declarations.
Is it idiomatic? No. Should it be used as an example for new learners of the language? Probably not. Should it be in an educational article? Probably not.
But one person't "abuse" is another person's "creativity." I love seeing how syntax can evolve beyond its intended uses.
My opinion - yes. I never imagined typing out type names was a hassle when using an IDE like Visual Studio. I know a number of people use it religiously - but when I read code I find it easier to read C++ with types than the auto keyword everywhere. But I'm sure a number of people still use vi (or emacs), and even smaller number of those people use gdb or some other debugger.
Apparently Linus doesn't use a debugger [1]. I have some comments on that - but I'll keep them to myself.
[1] http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2000090700221OSCYKN
"Guideline: Remember that preferring auto variables is motivated primarily by correctness, performance, maintainability, and robustness—and only lastly about typing convenience." [1]
http://herbsutter.com/2013/08/12/gotw-94-solution-aaa-style-...
What? I want whatever he is smoking.
> correctness
C++ allows for casting to/from different types (the core behind polymorphism) - but if you cast to the wrong type then that's your own fault. If you want a warm fuzzy feeling of not worrying about bad casts - use Python/Go/FreeBASIC/some other language.
> performance
That is complete and utter delusion. Your program won't run any faster or optimize better because you used the auto keyword [1]. If anything - it will take even longer (ms longer) to compile.
> maintainability
I have an odd feeling about that. Yeah you can change the return type of a method or function and you don't have to worry about changing the code calling those methods/functions. But if you are changing to a vastly different type - you are going to have to change the calling code anyways.
> robustness
I don't want the compiler to fix my mistakes. I want the compiler to tell me how stupid I am and force me to fix them.
[1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19618759/c-11-auto-compil...
Which seems to be an often case in C++, class and class/typename comes to my mind. Also, old auto use was removed to the new set of meaning right?
I find it easier to read now, specially when using iterators on for loops.
auto now = boost::chrono::steady_clock::now().time_since_epoch();
auto timeSinceEpoch = boost::chrono::duration_cast<boost::chrono::milliseconds>(now).count();
(This is from http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16700277/get-a-double-fro...).
The person writing the answer is dilligent and hence has supplied the types as a preamble. Most articles / answers / api docs dont take the effort to elaborate on return value types.