Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: overuse of auto is dangerous Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2020 12:49:18 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 50 Message-ID: <86k12vni9t.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <87tv2pqm0i.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86imii6knh.fsf@linuxsc.com> <434bb7d9-7343-4894-96f6-705f96cb68b9@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="962b2addb8ebbeafdd69920a30d34173"; logging-data="22465"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18LHTIliUdKRCkER0bP3OFriJZQf1ajWVI=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:tJdR+IOlbfIKTzQGP248ClUeoDQ= sha1:BQBkIBJbGS/71dllnClrmZNEglk= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c++:72814 James Kuyper writes: > On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 10:13:17 AM UTC-4, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> Keith Thompson writes: > > ... > >>> Good reasons for using a different name for the same parameter in a >>> declaration and definition of a function? I can't think of any. >> >> Do you think it's possible that, for reasons of their own, >> someone would deliberately choose to use a different name for >> some function parameter where the function is declared, as >> compared to where the function is defined, even though you >> can't think of any good reason to do so? > > There's no inconsistency between that possibility and what Keith said; That is a true statement. > people often do things without having a good reason for doing them. That also is a true statement. > He also only said that he couldn't think of any good reasons Not exactly correct, but we can let that slide. > - that > wording explicitly allows for the possibility of reasons he couldn't > think of. Not correct. It implicitly allows for such a possibility, but not explicitly. > In fact, his comment could even be interpreted as an > invitation to enlighten him about what such reasons might be. Yes it could. His comment also could be interpreted as hinting that he thinks there are no good reasons. > Can you so enlighten him? AFAIK he isn't seeking enlightenment, and I wouldn't presume to suppose otherwise. > If not, there was really no point in responding. Your purposes are not my purposes.