This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: g++ 2.95 typeinfo::name()
- To: Mike Stump <mrs at windriver dot com>
- Subject: Re: g++ 2.95 typeinfo::name()
- From: dvv at egcs dot dvv dot ru (Dima Volodin)
- Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 19:58:49 GMT
- Cc: aoliva at redhat dot com, rssh at gvinpin dot grad dot kiev dot ua, Oliver dot Kellogg at vs dot dasa dot de, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Organization: Huh?
- References: <200101221831.KAA10525@kankakee.wrs.com>
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:31:08 -0800 (PST), you wrote:
>> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> Cc: "Kellogg, Oliver" <Oliver.Kellogg@vs.dasa.de>,
>> "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> From: Alexandre Oliva <email@example.com>
>> Date: 22 Jan 2001 10:58:25 -0200
>> On Jan 22, 2001, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> > On 22 Jan 2001, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> >> Yep. It would also be correct if it just returned an empty string for
>> >> all types.
>> > No. must be true:
>> > typeof(x)==typeof(y) <=> typeof(x).name equal typeof(y).name()
>> Nope. All the standard says is that the result of type_info::name()
>> is an implementation-defined null-terminated byte string.
>The standard is irrelevant in this case. What Oliver said must be
>true, must be true, really. Just meeting the standard is fine in many
>cases, however, at times, we do want to do more than the standard.
Doing that encourages writing of non-compliant and non-portable code,
which is bad, really bad.