This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: g++ 2.95 typeinfo::name()
- To: dvv at egcs dot dvv dot ru, jcast at ou dot edu
- Subject: RE: g++ 2.95 typeinfo::name()
- From: dewar at gnat dot com
- Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 00:57:50 -0500 (EST)
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
<<I'm sorry; maybe I'm missing something. I thought the discussion was about
a *required* function with undefined semantics. It seems to me that there
has to be some kind of deterministic behavior. If this behavior exists,
what is wrong with documenting it?
>>
Where do you deduce that the semantics must be deterministic?