if(;){} opinion

[Ameer Armaly]

"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.
>
> 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.