> I often have a similar dicussion around "let". Many of my C++ programmer colleagues seem to think that "let" is an arbitrary name to differentiate itself for

> I often have a similar dicussion around "let". Many of my C++ programmer colleagues seem to think that "let" is an arbitrary name to differentiate itself for the sake of it where "auto" would suffice. But what they don't see is that let is an entirely different thing (bindings, pattern matching, etc) that would be misleading to present with "auto", let alone C/C++'s type-name-value syntax. Not to mention that "let" came from ML. The idea that they "deviated" from C++ syntax is wrong, because they didn't take the feature from C++ at all.