Re: [c++] Another question about demangler output

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

"Zack Weinberg" <zack@codesourcery.com> writes:

| Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> writes:
| > "Zack Weinberg" <zack@codesourcery.com> writes:
| > | If this is the case, then the alternatives would seem to be either
| > | printing out demangled expressions that are invalid C++ but
| > | comprehensible to a human, or else making up names as necessary and
| > | printing their definitions too.  The latter seems like too much
| > | trouble, and liable to confuse humans more than the former.
| >
| > Well, if it is invlid C++, it is not obvious that it would be
| > comprehensible to a human :-)
| 
| Good point.  Do you have a better idea?

While I'm really uncomfortable with the use of __typeof__ where it was
not present in source code (hence leading to confusions with other
portions), I confess that I cannot propose at the moment something
beyond what Michael presented in his last message.

If anything, those examples prove that the requirement to output
anything but a valid C++ from a fairly non-straightforward C++
constructs is unreasonable.

-- Gaby