PROPOSAL: 'final' without explicit type (update)

[Tim Lebedkov]

Hello Reinier,

2009/3/31 Reinier Zwitserloot <reinier at zwitserloot.com>:

> FWIW, I'm -strongly- in favour of implicit typing for final local method
> variables, and opposed to extending this for non-finals, not just because
> its hard to come up with a syntax for it, due to there being no readily
> available keywords or operators to do it with. := comes to mind, but that's
> about it.
>
> NB2: If you want to push forward with this proposal anyway, I strongly
> suggest you rewrite it to this, which would be far more backwards
> compatible:
>
> foo := expression;
>
> instead of:
>
> auto foo = expression;

Thank you for the suggestion, but I think 'auto' is better and fits
better in the current language.

Regards
--Tim