Re: [boost] [TypeIndex] Peer review period for library acceptance begins, ending Thurs 21st Nov

Subject: Re: [boost] [TypeIndex] Peer review period for library acceptance begins, ending Thurs 21st Nov
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-11-13 04:46:20

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Antony Polukhin <antoshkka_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 2013/11/13 Gavin Lambert <gavinl_at_[hidden]>
>
>> Or how about:
>>   * const char *name() : returns whatever std::type_info::name does [if
>> RTTI]
>>   * std::string short_name() : returns the raw/mangled name
>>   * std::string long_name() : returns the long/demangled name
>>
>> Or flip the components (name_short and name_long) if you prefer; it sorts
>> better but reads worse that way, I think.
>>
>> (With RTTI disabled, all three would probably return the same value.)
>>
>
> This is a good idea, thanks! Using it less user code will be broken.
>
> Do you like the following names:
> * const char* name() // minor behavior change on MSVC
> * const char* name_mangled() // this method must be added
> * std::string name_demangled() // remains exactly the same

I haven't had the chance to review the library (yet), but I second
that boost::type_info::name() should be equivalent to
std::type_info::name(), including MSVC.

All special logic of demangling should be implemented in a new
function, like name_demangled (and let me suggest a few other names
for it - readable_name(), pretty_name()).

name_mangled() is controversial because formally you have no
guaranteed way to acquire a mangled name of the type. Some compilers
provide it, others don't. I assume, you don't want to implement
mangling algorithms for these compilers, so I'm in favor of removing
this function or at least changing its semantics and name to something
less obligatory, like raw_name() or underlying_name().