What is the correct use of auto?

[Unknown W. Brackets]

Well, I completely agree there - you make the good point that I meant, 
but never said...

If in doubt, don't use auto.  Only use it when it seems specifically 
right to.

I think if that rule is followed documentation will be clear.  That 
said... I'd use the same code in my own code anyway, 
documentation/example or not.

-[Unknown]


Robert Fraser wrote:
> Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
>> Surely; but I think cases where you have to deal with another API 
>> (e.g. of another library) are actually very frequent.  Documenting 
>> them in your documentation may neither be prudent nor helpful.
>>
>> Most of the time, using auto for a return type is bad.  However, it 
>> might be good - especially with a comment like this:
>>
>> // Version 1 and 2 return different types here.
>> // Version 1 returns "Xyz" and version 2 returns "Abc".
>>
>> Or also:
>>
>> // The type returned here may change at some point.
>> // It will always have a "runFromGodzilla" method, which is the only one
>> // that is useful in this version of the library.
>>
>> And similar.  Undocumented, or poorly documented, examples are another 
>> problem.  Telling me that your car runs badly without gas doesn't mean 
>> tell me anything about oil.  Sure, they may both be things to improve 
>> with your car.
>>
>> I didn't say my example was perfect, but it isn't a wrong or confusing 
>> use of auto.  If I were really documenting the use of stderr, I'd 
>> probably show mainly strings, much more in the way of formatting, etc. 
>> Likely I would also describe why and how it is best for error 
>> messages, even possibly a basic primer on how to pipe it properly.
>>
>> Sorry I did not give a fully developed example.  It was merely to 
>> illustrate, since I'm sure anyone participating in this conversation 
>> understands stderr.
>>
>> I frankly hate Mango/Tango's abuse of the (), and etc.  I think it 
>> makes for hard to read code, confuses beginners, and isn't even 
>> clean.  I realize many disagree and this is obviously a personal opinion.
>>
>> But I think anyone would agree that isn't a good example and auto has 
>> been misused there out of laziness.  I just think that saying "auto is 
>> wrong always" is very likely incorrect.
>>
>> -[Unknown]
> 
> I agree with everything you said here. My initial statement of "auto is 
> always wrong in examples" was too broad, but that's from experience 
> (mostly with Mango/Tango examples, but I don't mean to pick on them 
> here) that used auto in confusing ways. I guess what I'm trying to say 
> is that in examples, "air on the side of caution" and use auto only when 
> the type is either very clear or has no bearing on the example.
> 
> So, basically, what you just said.