UPDATE: There is a proposal to change the meaning of auto
in certain situations.
Implicit Evaluation of “auto” Variables and Arguments by Joel Falcou and others.
The implicit evaluation shall:
- Enable class implementers to indicate that objects of this class are evaluated in an auto statement;
- Enable them to determine the type of the evaluated object;
...
C++11's auto
keyword is great.
However in my opinion if a type is Not Regular (see for example, What is a "Regular Type" in the context of move semantics?) the usage of auto
becomes tricky.
Is there a way to disable the auto
declaration for such type?
Suppose one has a ref
class that emulates a reference
double 5.;
ref<double> rd = d; // `ref` behaves like a reference, so it is not a regular type
ref<double> rd2 = rd; // `ref` can be (syntactically) copy constructible, (it is not regular for other reason)
auto r = rd; // now r is not `double`, but EVEN WORST it is `ref<double>`.
(in real life it would be a more complicated class, the important point is that the class at hand it is not regular.)
The only way I found auto r = rd
not to work (give a compile error) is to make the class non copyable, however I need the class to have copy constructor (with a special semantics, but a copy constructor still).
Is there a way to disable a syntax auto r = rd
somehow? when decltype(rd)
is not regular.
(Even better could be to be able somehow to tell the compiler what auto
should do precisely).
Note: This is not a very artificial problem, one could see that this type of problem is at the core of std::vector<bool>::reference
(which is also a reference wrapper). Disabling (somehow) the syntax auto b = v[10]
wouldn't solve the problem of std::vector<bool>
but it will make bad usage harder.
Am I missing something? Should I change some other part of the design? Should the non-regular classes have a type trait that would help the compiler determine a more general auto (for example deduce bool
for auto b = v[10]
where std::vector<bool> v
.)