type_info::name question

[Martin von Loewis]

> IMHO, type_info::name isn't useful at all if it returns some cryptic
> string. Is there some intention behind that behavior or is it just the
> shortest way towards conformance? 

I believe the shortest way to conformance would be

type_info::name()
{
  return "";
}

The standard does not mandate that different type_infos give different
names.

> The compiler already contains unmangler code, doesn't it?

The compiler doesn't, libiberty does. Of course, the compiler can just
pretty-print class names, as it does in error messages.

My feeling is that type_info::name isn't that useful, period. OTOH, it
probably wouldn't be difficult to change the g++ implementation of it.
We just need some volunteer.

Regards,
Martin