Is D 0.163 D 1.0?

[kris]

Chris Nicholson-Sauls wrote:
> Don Clugston wrote:
> 
>> Nooooooooo!!!!
>> Am I the only person who has hundreds of local variables called 'var'?
>> (mostly variants in Win32 code).
>>
>> A quick google search for 'var cpp' showed a million hits, a fair 
>> chunk of them are local variables in C++ code. It's a very popular 
>> variable name.
> 
> 
> Actually I do feel your pain, but I still vote for it.  Waaay back in 
> the day I used to do a lot of LambdaMOO server hacking, and therein I 
> discovered my first Var struct.  (That'd be about 1996 I think it was.)  
> Now, ten years later, I am working on BovisMOO... and I'm still using a 
> Var struct (albeit a much cleaner one), and plenty of temporary Var's 
> named, yes, 'var.'
> 
> But I can always just rename them to 'tmp', or something else.  
> (Actually a lot of them would probably get renamed 'result' since that's 
> what they generally are.)
> 
> -- Chris Nicholson-Sauls

I suspect the focus should be directed elsewhere, Chris?

There's nothing wrong with using "auto" for implicit-type -- it's the 
confusion with raii that's the issue, yes?

I suspect the ratio of raii usage to implicit-type usage would be 
overwhelmingly in favour of the latter. Thus, it would seem to make 
sense to leave implicit-type "auto" just as it is, and change raii to 
use something else instead; such as "scope" ?

void main()
{
   auto i = 10;
   auto foo = new Foo;
   auto scope bar = new Bar;
   auto scope wumpus = new Wumpus;
}

class Foo {}

class Bar {}

scope class Wumpus {}