This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: g++ 2.95 typeinfo::name()
- To: jbuck at racerx dot synopsys dot com, mrs at windriver dot com
- Subject: Re: g++ 2.95 typeinfo::name()
- From: dewar at gnat dot com
- Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 00:51:11 -0500 (EST)
- Cc: Oliver dot Kellogg at vs dot dasa dot de, aoliva at redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,gdr at codesourcery dot com, rssh at gvinpin dot grad dot kiev dot ua
<<The standard only sets a minimum requirement. When the standard says
that a feature may be implemented in an implementation-defined manner,
the assumption was that the feature be implemented in an
implementation-defined useful way, not an implementation-defined useless
way.
Taking out a useful implementation and replacing it by a useless one
would be a regression.
>>
Nope, and nope. There is no such implication in the language of the
standard, and no such requirement. Some would argue that "useful
" implementations of impl-defined stuff are inherently undesirable
since they encourage non-portable programming, so who is to judge
what is useful and not useful, I don't think we can simply say that
the standard says that impl defined things must do what Joe thinks
is useful :-)