g++ 2.95 typeinfo::name()

[Joe Buck]

> > | The standard is irrelevant in this case.  What Oliver said must be
> > | true, must be true, really.  Just meeting the standard is fine in many
> > | cases, however, at times, we do want to do more than the standard.
> 
> > You're making a wish and I understand that.

Mike Stump writes:
> No, I'm doing more than that.  I am stating a release requirement, and
> also stating the current behavior of our compiler, and I suspect every
> C++ compiler out there.
> 
> > But that doesn't make the current behaviour a bug as far as the
> > standard is concerned.
> 
> I know that.  Maybe you thought I was commenting on the demangled
> version of the name, I was not.  I was merely commenting on the
> already implemented behavior of the compiler and Alexandre's remark.

Some developers seem to think that if the standard permits us to implement
a feature in a useless way, and we do so, that we therefore do not have
a bug.

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.