C++11 – declaring non-static data members as ‘auto’

by

The rule for prohibiting non-static members is in 7.1.6.4 clause 4:

The auto type-specifier can also be used in declaring a variable in
the condition of a selection statement (6.4) or an iteration statement
(6.5), in the type-specifier-seq in the new-type-id or type-id of a
new-expression (5.3.4), in a for-range-declaration, and in declaring a
static data member with a brace-or-equal-initializer that appears within the member-specification of a class definition (9.4.2).

I found the rationale for it being static here which reflects how James McNellis explains it in the comment.

One national body dislikes allowing the auto type-specifier for
non-statics. From an e-mail to the authors:

    template< class T >
    struct MyType : T {
      auto data = func();
      static const size_t erm = sizeof(data);
    };

In order to determine the layout of X, we now have 2-phase name lookup and ADL. Note that func could be either a type or a function;
it may be found in T, the namespace of MyType, the associated
namespace(s) of T when instantiated, the global namespace, an
anonymous namespace, or any namespaces subject to a using directive.
With care we could probably throw some concept_map lookup in for luck.
Depending on the order of header inclusion I might even get different results for ADL, and break the One Definition Rule – which
is not required to be diagnosed.

Because of this controversy, the authors no longer propose that auto
be allowed for non-static data members.

So, basically depending on the order of header inclusion, the type of data could be very different. Of course, auto x = 5; would not need to depend on 2-phase name lookup or ADL, however, I’m a assuming that they made it a “blanket” rule because otherwise, they would have to make individual rules for every use case which would make things very complicated.

In the same paper, the author proposes eliminating this restriction, however, it seems this proposal has been rejected probably due to the above rationale and also so that expected behavior can be the same no matter what the initializer is.

More Related Contents:

  1. Why can I use auto on a private type?
  2. How much is too much with C++11 auto keyword?
  3. What is the type of lambda when deduced with “auto” in C++11?
  4. Should the trailing return type syntax style become the default for new C++11 programs? [closed]
  5. What does auto&& tell us?
  6. Arrow operator (->) in function heading
  7. Why does auto x{3} deduce an initializer_list?
  8. Range-for-loops and std::vector
  9. C++ auto keyword. Why is it magic?
  10. C++11 auto: what if it gets a constant reference?
  11. Can the use of C++11’s ‘auto’ improve performance?
  12. The new keyword “auto”; When should it be used to declare a variable type? [duplicate]
  13. What is the purpose of a declaration like int (x); or int (x) = 10;
  14. Advantage of using trailing return type in C++11 functions
  15. Why doesn’t the C++11 ‘auto’ keyword work for static members?
  16. C++11 Change `auto` Lambda to a different Lambda?
  17. Does ‘auto’ type assignments of a pointer in c++11 require ‘*’?
  18. reinterpret_cast creating a trivially default-constructible object
  19. Why does C++11’s lambda require “mutable” keyword for capture-by-value, by default?
  20. initializer_list and template type deduction
  21. What constitutes a valid state for a “moved from” object in C++11?
  22. Why is initialization of a new variable by itself valid? [duplicate]
  23. Is the pass-by-value-and-then-move construct a bad idiom?
  24. Why is this code trying to call the copy constructor?
  25. How to enforce copy elision, why it won’t work with deleted copy constructor?
  26. Is the ranged based for loop beneficial to performance?
  27. Enum vs Strongly typed enum
  28. generic member function pointer as a template parameter
  29. How can I use std::imbue to set the locale for std::wcout?
  30. Why isn’t std::array::size static?

Leave a Comment