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 05:11:29

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Antony Polukhin <antoshkka_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 2013/11/13 Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]>
>
>> 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().
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
> People may use auto-fill in IDE a lot (I do), so maybe starting methods
> from name_* is more auto-fill friendly:
>
> * const char* name() // same as std::type_info::name()
> * const char* name_raw() //
> * std::string name_pretty() // was name_demangled()
>
> In this way you just type name_ and see all the available name methods.

IMHO, it's better when the names differ from the beginning, so you
don't have to select the variant in the combo-box. It's enough to just
press 'n', 'r' or 'p' to get the required function first in the list.
Also, some IDE's allow to select auto-completion choices based on
substrings in any part of the function name, not just the beginning.

In any case, I think a clear name is more important than trying to
make it work nicely in a particular IDE. There are many IDEs, of
varying qualities and levels of sophistication, and in the end the
only thing that matters is the code.