Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Overuse of 'auto'
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2022 13:05:14 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <86pmcs47at.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <tmslfi$h09$1@gioia.aioe.org> <69e27519-337d-4891-9af3-0cccced7b6abn@googlegroups.com> <tmvb9r$1n54$1@gioia.aioe.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="53a6f3a968d6b54e1413f52d3c3af34e"; logging-data="1389015"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18e3z0i1YT8LqsMnqezIExYJPXaIovjLFU="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5RAZErnt0uxK1NDuvJTVJFlp4BI= sha1:0Bu1fcPgHbdrN+WqVjyLDrrtDRE=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c++:87787

Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:

>  Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote:
>
>> Yes but it is tedious.  Some types are *LONG*, especially what templates
>> can return.
>
> So what?  I very much oppose the brevity-over-clarity style of
> programming.

There is a tacit assumption in that statement that longer is
always easier to read or more readily comprehended.  The
assumption is wrong.  Good writers appreciate the difference
between lengthy phrasing and concise phrasing, using each as
appropriate, and varying wording choices between the two, to make
their writing more effective.  That advice applies to programming
as much as it does to writing prose.