What is the intended use of auto in these cases in a statically typed language? It seems counter-productive because in C++ writing type annotations is an aide to the code reader to understand the code author’s intent. Making the code reader also infer types of constituent variables, and remember those types in their head as they read the surrounding code where some e.g. structured binding was used to assign to some variables — this seems like a very bad thing to do to code readers and you’re gaining hardly anything in terms of terser syntax.
Compared with Python, say, where you always know that the burden of understanding how a variable is used is part of the reader’s responsibility, maybe with conventional help in docstrings or optional type hints, this C++ feature seems like the worst of both worlds. You still have to add some annotation (“auto”) and keep in mental cache an understanding of the types, instead of just being nice and explicit about it and declaring things with the types.
So you don’t get the freedom of duck typing on the auto’d variables, and you trade for slightly reduced syntax instead of explicit annotations for the reader.
It seems like it would immediately become a C++ anti-pattern to use structures binding. It’s cute instead of pragmatic.
Compared with Python, say, where you always know that the burden of understanding how a variable is used is part of the reader’s responsibility, maybe with conventional help in docstrings or optional type hints, this C++ feature seems like the worst of both worlds. You still have to add some annotation (“auto”) and keep in mental cache an understanding of the types, instead of just being nice and explicit about it and declaring things with the types.
So you don’t get the freedom of duck typing on the auto’d variables, and you trade for slightly reduced syntax instead of explicit annotations for the reader.
It seems like it would immediately become a C++ anti-pattern to use structures binding. It’s cute instead of pragmatic.