Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: Overuse of 'auto' Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2022 01:01:46 -0800 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 56 Message-ID: <87tu1qqwhx.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> References: <87edsvs0js.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e07f61ae636564fa3e440a4cbc40a9ec"; logging-data="693673"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+I+AOUwaAuA1Qj/W3/bB8L" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:F9x79dNbqbuBvommTPYUrJOb9xk= sha1:Dkf8OiE88jX0bVEIIyqi779Bd94= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c++:88109 Juha Nieminen writes: > Keith Thompson wrote: >> Juha Nieminen writes: >>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>>>>Get into your thick skull that just because *you* can understand >>>> >>>> Insults when losing argument. Tick. >>> >>> Insults? Maybe it's because I'm not a native English speaker, but >>> this is the first time in my life I hear that "thick skull" is an >>> insult. It just means "stubborn". Unless you think "stubborn" is >>> also an insult. >> >> I am a native English speaker. Yes, "Get into your thick skull >> ..." is an insult. > > Well, it was not originally my intent to use it as an insult. > > However, by this point I'm actually changing my mind. I just cannot > believe why people are arguing for the sake of arguing, against > something that should be extraordinarily non-controversial like > "name your variables and functions clearly". > > Such a sentiment seems so highly controversial that now people are > resorting to petty "you are now insulting me!!!" whining. > > What's wrong with people? This is absolutely insane. > >>> I myself can be quite stubborn at times. I don't find that very >>> insulting. >>> >>> Maybe you also have a thin skin in addition to a thick skull... >> >> Also an insult. > > Then so be it. I don't care anymore. This entire thing is completely > insane. > >> Nobody here is saying "clearer variable and function naming is a bad >> thing". > > Actually they are. There are people here who in all seriousness are > claiming that cryptic acronyms are literally easier to read and > understand than names consisting of full words. > > I'm sorry, but I am not going to be convinced of that. I'm not insane. > (There's another "insult", you're welcome.) Feel free to pretend you've won an argument. *PLONK* -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com Working, but not speaking, for XCOM Labs void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */