This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: g++ 2.95 typeinfo::name()
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Subject: RE: g++ 2.95 typeinfo::name()
- From: Jon Cast <jcast at ou dot edu>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 14:23:36 -0600
- Cc: Dima Volodin <dvv at egcs dot dvv dot ru>
Dima Volodin wrote:
> >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.
I hate to butt in here, being relatively new to this list, but it seems to
me that imposing brain-damaged restrictions is what would be bad. I don't
have any problem with extensions, as long as they're clean and clearly
documented as such. What I have a problem with is providing nearly useless
"features" because ISO doesn't provide useful semantics. Standards are
great tools /for the user/. They shouldn't get in the user's way.