How about "auto" parameters?

[Matthew Ong]

On 6/3/2011 11:16 AM, Mehrdad wrote:

 >But it's also tiresome to continually argue the same things over and 
 >over with new people.  I think this is just the way things are, and 
 >will always be.
Have you ever wonder why that pops up over and over again by your own
experience? Perhaps people knows that is the useful syntax? Nope,
the world changed in the last 3-4 years, and shocked a lot of people.

Past does not define the future. Just like C++ people mocked at Java 1.0
or Java mocked at C# does not mean those idea are alll bad?

The only constant in history is: Past does not define the future.

Walter and I were looking very seriously at this around the beginning of 
2008, with exactly the same syntax. At some point I recall we discussed 
a "static" version too.

+

Many times (and this was the case with your proposals), someone brings 
up an idea that has been discussed and rejected already.

=
 >AND MAKE sure you read this
 >d.D.NoSuchUselessSuggestion

See, I do understand your frustration targeted at newbie with such
suggestion.

Personally I think Mehrdad did a good job in suggesting this new syntax.
He might have been exposed in other modern language like X?

Feel free to shoot this down like a bug also.

-- 
Matthew Ong
email: ongbp at yahoo.com