This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: g++ 2.95 typeinfo::name()
- To: Jon Cast <jcast at ou dot edu>
- Subject: Re: g++ 2.95 typeinfo::name()
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: 22 Jan 2001 22:00:01 +0100
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Dima Volodin <dvv at egcs dot dvv dot ru>
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <NEBBKJPLALAIJFKMPIPPIEKLCEAA.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Jon Cast <email@example.com> writes:
| 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.
And users shouldn't claim the compiler has a bug when it just
implements an implementation-defined semantics the way it thinks
useful for its purposes.
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com