From: Emily Winch (emily_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-19 02:25:23
mfdylan said:
>But if auto is to remain a storage class specifier you couldn't use
>it to declare functions. So either auto's meaning needs to be
>explicitly changed, or you would need to use extern or static instead.
>I doubt too many (if any) people still use 'auto' these days, but
>there is a potential danger in taking an already well defined keyword
>and changing it to mean something else.
I think auto's meaning has to be explicitly overloaded anyway. What if you
want to deduce the type of a static variable
static auto foo = complicated_thing<x, y, z>::type;
? This is illegal at the moment even if we add a type ("static auto
int....")
However, as far as I can see (probably not that far :) ) using auto to
declare functions doesn't invalidate or change the meaning of any existing
correct syntax. Where's the danger?
Emily.