g++ 2.95 typeinfo::name()

[dewar@gnat.com]

<<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 :-)