Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: overuse of auto is dangerous
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2020 10:19:27 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <874ku1u7og.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <r4eghj$j17$1@dont-email.me> <r4fm0n$rdv$1@dont-email.me> <EpJaG.606811$%G5.213848@fx03.am4> <r4g1ls$a1a$1@dont-email.me> <r4i44g$ls9$1@dont-email.me> <r4is8t$3b5$1@dont-email.me> <Gq8bG.543651$Bf2.462147@fx39.am4> <r4l3fp$v13$1@dont-email.me> <87tv2pqm0i.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86imii6knh.fsf@linuxsc.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="3819bc2a00f7d30b644a1b83a43bdfb4"; logging-data="15331"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19IdU18ZMCe5e8cr0u9qJ5E"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:earrXPplHhp+oMJ4r6uwzRQ9crs= sha1:GpMHX85Qk/gz00g8ep4o0gyk0bc=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c++:72758

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>> On 14/03/2020 18:23, Bart wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> C, and I assume C++, allows this:
>>>>
>>>>   void fn(int sum, int prod);
>>>>   void fn(int prod, int sum) {....}
>>>>
>>>> If only the declaration is visible at the call-site, it will be misleading.
>>>
>>> Yes.  That is one thing I strongly dislike about the languages, and it
>>> is a big hinder to having a simple system of named parameters.
>>> However, it is also clear that there are some /good/ reasons for
>>> allowing different names for parameters.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> 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?

The answer to this deeply uninteresting question is yes.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */