Re: g++ 2.95 typeinfo::name()

[Dima Volodin <dvv at egcs dot dvv dot ru>]

On 22 Jan 2001 22:00:01 +0100, you wrote:

>Jon Cast <jcast@ou.edu> 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.

And adding some "useful semantics" not defined in the standard to
standard features is asking for exactly this type of claims.

>-- Gaby

Dima