> “It has been demonstrated several times in this thread that there clearly are cases where the types can be deduced effortlessly and avoiding explicit information leads to cleaner code.”
I do not see a single example in this thread that demonstrates that. Absence of explicit type info is an inherently bad thing. It’s never good to offer code readers less explicit / more ambiguous info.
Like I said, you’d expect some offsetting benefit (what you call “cleaner code”) to compensate for paying the penalty of giving up valuable explicit info. But auto does not actually provide that in comparison to typedef/typename. auto, by comparison, is not meaningfully cleaner code. It only loses valuable explicit information, without an offsetting benefit that couldn’t otherwise be obtained without losing that valuable explicit information.
I do not see a single example in this thread that demonstrates that. Absence of explicit type info is an inherently bad thing. It’s never good to offer code readers less explicit / more ambiguous info.
Like I said, you’d expect some offsetting benefit (what you call “cleaner code”) to compensate for paying the penalty of giving up valuable explicit info. But auto does not actually provide that in comparison to typedef/typename. auto, by comparison, is not meaningfully cleaner code. It only loses valuable explicit information, without an offsetting benefit that couldn’t otherwise be obtained without losing that valuable explicit information.