This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: g++ 2.95 typeinfo::name()
- To: dvv at egcs dot dvv dot ru (Dima Volodin)
- Subject: Re: g++ 2.95 typeinfo::name()
- From: Tim Hollebeek <tim at hollebeek dot com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 20:31:40 -0500 (EST)
- Cc: gdr at codesourcery dot com (Gabriel Dos Reis), jcast at ou dot edu (Jon Cast), gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Dima Volodin writes ...
> >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.
Dima, you're acting like a moron.
The minimum behavior mandated by the standard, x.name() returning ""
for all x, would generate tons of questions along the lines of:
1) gcc is broken on my system, x.name() always returns ""
2) gcc implements x.name(). if it always returns the same thing, what's the point in having it?
etc ad nauseum. What you propose would actually INCREASE the number
of false bug reports, so your argument about "asking for exactly this
sort of claim" is nonsensical.
So please shut up.
Seriously, standards writers leave things implementation-defined
because 1. certain things legitimately are compiler or system
dependent, and 2. standards writers trust compiler writers to chose
reasonable implementations in these areas. This is perfectly natural,
as is warning about programs that depending on implementation-defined
behavior to increase portability, etc. But sticking one's head in the
sand (or elsewhere) and stubbornly claiming implementation defined
behavior shouldn't exist is moronic.