From 6454803343625416063 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,ede379f5dbbc1549 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public From: sirwillard@my-deja.com Subject: Re: Suggestion: "typeof" keyword Date: 1999/08/12 Message-ID: <7oupeu$8te$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 511894761 X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 167.16.75.51 Approved: stephen.clamage@sun.com (comp.std.c++) References: <7nt3vl$1oe$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7oh7o8$t3f$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <37AE541B.A998F729@cs.utu.fi> <37AFAC37.6B7F4253@cs.utu.fi> <7opt86$pku$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-UID: 0000000001 X-Status: $$$T X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows NT) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x29.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 167.16.75.51 Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Aug 12 15:32:46 1999 GMT X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsirwillard Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Originator: clamage@taumet In article , christian.bau@isltd.insignia.com (Christian Bau) wrote: > In article <7opt86$pku$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, sirwillard@my-deja.com wrote: > > > > See my example: > > > > typeof(a*b+c*d+e/f) x = a*b+c*d+e/f; > > > vs. > > > > declare x = a*b+c*d+e/f; > > > I find the first line less clear in intent. > > > > I don't. Even if I agreed, however, I think the idiom to be poor. > > What you are doing is asking the compiler to determine the type of a > > complex expression and at the same time declare an instance of that > > type. If I can't determine the type at the time I write such a line, > > I'd hardly want the compiler to do so for me. There may be rare cases > > in which this is useful, but they are too rare to warrant yet another > > keyword when the typeof keyword gives the same identical functionality. > > It is all about maintenance, and not forcing the programmer to specify > things that he really doesnt care about. Say I want to exchange variables > x and y. I need a temporary variable tmp. I dont want to specify the size > of tmp, just "big enough". > > Anything that I have to specify is one thing that I can get right or > wrong. Anything that I dont have to specify is one thing that I cannot get > wrong. I prefer things that dont go wrong. I see the "magic type" as being just as prone to error, but harder to ascertain why. You've basically lessened type safety here. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't. [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]