On 4 March 2015 at 17:59, Geoffrey Romer wrote:
> Interesting; my reaction is precisely the opposite- I find enhanced auto
> deduction very appealing (for reasons that others on this thread have
> elaborated), but am actively uninterested in the abbreviated template
> syntax. It seems to me to offer only a modest improvement in brevity, and
> pays for it with a very substantial reduction in readability. That
> compromise may be appropriate for lambdas, because brevity is particularly
> important inside a single expression, but it seems far less justifiable in
> the case of ordinary functions. Functions are not under the kinds of space
> constraints that lambdas are, and function signatures (unlike lambda
> signatures) often act as abstraction boundaries, so it's particularly
> important for them to convey useful information to the reader.

This conveys useful information:

template<typename ForwardIterator>
  ForwardIterator next(ForwardIterator);

but that's still true if it's rewritten like this:

ForwardIterator next(ForwardIterator);

This doesn't convey any useful information:

template<typename T>
  void frob(T);

so in terms of describing the interface it's no different when written
like this:

void frob(auto);

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.

.