if(;){} opinion

[Ameer Armaly]

"Ameer Armaly" <ameer_armaly at hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:du0dh5$5v6$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Georg Wrede" <georg.wrede at nospam.org> wrote in message 
> news:4403B499.2060300 at nospam.org...
>> Derek Parnell wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:14:28 -0500, Carlos Santander wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Derek Parnell escribió:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 22:25:37 +1100, Nils Hensel
>>>>> <nils.hensel at web.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lionello Lunesu schrieb:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Talking of which: when is that "auto" ambiguity going to be
>>>>>>> resolved? (I still prefer "var" to "auto"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This would get my vote as well. "var" is far more intuitive and
>>>>>> it would be similar to DScript. I don't think there's an
>>>>>> obvious connection between "auto" and the data type of a
>>>>>> variable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks! There has been something bugging me about this since it
>>>>> appeared and that is it. True its an 'auto' but an auto what?
>>>>> Auto scope? Auto Type? Auto mobile? Auto initialization? Simply,
>>>>> 'auto' is way too ambiguous. At least 'var' is more focused.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia
>>>>
>>>> I prefer auto for auto typing rather than for auto destruction.
>>>> Preferences...
>>>
>>>
>>> But that's my point ... 'auto' by itself is ambiguous and for a
>>> first-timer to understand it depends somewhat on one's preconceptions
>>> and preferences.
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>> auto for types is barely bearable. But something better should be 
>> invented. Personally I'd even settle for "var", in the worst case.
>>
Hmm... now that I think about it, what about "autotype?"
>> auto for RAII is not even barely bearable. We could even use "raii" 
>> rather than "auto". At least it wouldn't be ambiguous or opaque.
> I second that; it would certainly make more sense.
>