"R" suffix for reals

[Walter Bright]

On 5/7/2012 12:07 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> However, I think these examples are misleading and do not prove the point. It
> shows IMO more that you are better off declaring the type on the left if your
> code depends on it always staying the same.
>
> i.e. this does not have that problem:
>
> real r = 1L;

I tend to agree. If you're declaring things with 'auto', then you should not be 
relying on a specific type being inferred from the initializer - that would be 
poor style. Use of auto implies your code is more generic and adaptable to 
whatever type the initializer turns out to be.

If your usage of r requires it to be a specific type, it should be declared as 
having that type.