This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: g++ 2.95 typeinfo::name()
- To: dvv at egcs dot dvv dot ru, tim at hollebeek dot com
- Subject: Re: g++ 2.95 typeinfo::name()
- From: Mike Stump <mrs at windriver dot com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 19:19:44 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gdr at codesourcery dot com, jcast at ou dot edu
> From: Tim Hollebeek <tim@hollebeek.com>
> To: dvv@egcs.dvv.ru (Dima Volodin)
> Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 20:31:40 -0500 (EST)
> 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.
And in this case, I felt it was more of the fact that enough had been
invented in committee (this is a bad thing) and we wanted to not think
about what additional stuff we'd have to invent to spec name() and
that that we were sloppy in not requiring strcmp(name) iff typeid ==.
We all _knew_ this is what we meant, no contention, which made it less
likely that we'd spend time to clarify it. Things were we only
thought we knew what we meant that were sloppy (templates for example)
got time.