2 ms·

Actually, he does discuss this in section 4b. He doesn't come out as strongly in favor of it, "The jury is still out on whether to recommend this one wholesale

Actually, he does discuss this in section 4b. He doesn't come out as strongly in favor of it, "The jury is still out on whether to recommend this one wholesale," although he does list what he considers some advantages. He also acknowledges in section 6 that it doesn't work for non-moveable types. Despite my tendencies towards almost-always auto, I can't say that I consistently use auto x = type{init}, but there is certainly nothing wrong with it.

gpderetta 6y ago
> He also acknowledges in section 6 that it doesn't work for non-moveable types. Actually these days it does. Copy/Move elision is mandated by the language in this case and no valid copy/move constructor is required. Similarly is no possible to return non-movable non-copyable types from functions which opens the possibility of interesting code patternes.