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: Sun, 15 Mar 2020 15:41:17 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <87tv2pqm0i.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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="c46eafee64e9f7aff06b31f0a056d12f"; logging-data="7354"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Rq7Dhh4MjYEoTtoCwJjna"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:U8OQulVv6YDvWEEk4SNzEaq9rUc= sha1:bcd/R0aq8czziz/hOkOTS8T6/9s=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c++:72308

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.

-- 
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 */