auto, var, raii,scope, banana

[Don Clugston]

Nils Hensel wrote:
> Regan Heath schrieb:
>> I don't use "var" specifically but I have been known to use tmp, x, y, 
>> i, j, p, s, n, .. for all my temporary and/or meaningless variables. 
>> They typically have a short scope life and I can't see a problem with 
>> this practice.
> I don't either as there will never be a one letter keyword. As for "tmp" 
> it is a lot more descriptive than "var". Not all variables are holding 
> temporary values but all are "variable" as their name already implies. 
> Even i(=index) or n(=number of) bear a meaning in a mathematical 
> context. I'm not all against short variable names (though I try to 
> usually be more expressive) but their name should hint at their content 
> or use. "var" doesn't hint at anything.

It does. When I use it, 'var' is not an abbreviation of 'variable', it's 
an abbreviation of 'variant'.

>> I think Kris's point is that of the two choices 'var' and 'auto' the 
>> latter is less likely to annoy someone by colliding with existing user 
>> variables. The point is valid so long as the group of 'var' users is 
>> bigger than the group of 'auto' users, even if both groups are small.
> One should also consider future users of D since we haven't even reached 
> 1.0 yet. Since no one else already uses "auto" for this purpose but a 
> lot of languages use "var" I believe it to be the more intuitive option.
> 
> 
>> C++ may be an abomination but it does have 'market' dominance. You 
>> have to ask 'why'. You should learn from your 'enemies' ;)
> But those reasons are mainly historical and may be summed up by "it's 
> the least of all evils". This does not even hold true anymore. At least 
> not when you look at language constructs and elegance. It's clearly 
> "grown" not designed.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Nils