Paul Hsieh said:
There appears to be some movement towards deprecating auto. However,
the C++ people want to specifically use auto for implicit type
declarations in the next standard:
auto p = find (specificParameter);
the idea being that p becomes declared with the type that find
returns.
So do you guys even pay attention to each other or what?
Why yes, they do. If you meant to imply otherwise, you've chosen a
particularly odd example.
n1343.pdf, part of the Post Santa Clara mailing, says:
2.2.1 Deprecate "auto" (N1296) (Stoughton)
General agreement to deprecate the "auto" keyword. Should we ask
WG21 to go back to the previous use of "register" (no
address). No, this will not fly with WG 21.
This is in the "LIAISON ACTIVITIES" section.
n1296.pdf, referred to by n1434 says:
Liaison Statement from WG 21 to WG 14
At their February 2008 meeting, WG 21 decided to remove the
storage class specifier "auto" from the C++ language, as proposed
in their paper N2546. This storage class specifier was inherited
from the C language, but is rarely if ever used in C++. In
investigating this, it was also noted that very few if any uses of
"auto" could be found in C programs either.
It is the C++ intention to start using "auto" for a totally
different purpose, and to that end WG 21 would like to encourage
WG 14 to review the role of "auto" in their upcoming revision of
the C standard, and either deprecate or remove it as appropriate.
(WG 21 is the C++ committee; WG 14 is the C committee.)
So yes, they seem to pay a great deal of attention to each other.
Using auto in C for the same purpose as the new C++ will use it is an
interesting idea, but I don't think it has quite as much benefit for C
as it does for C++.
Note that deprecating "auto" means that it would remain in the next
version of the standard, but would be considered for removal in the
next one after that, so it would likely continue to be standard C for
the next 20 years or so. I'm not sure whether it would be better to
allow it to be used as an ordinary identifier or not, but there's
plenty of time to decide.