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: Gottlob Frege (gottlobfrege_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-11-22 18:28:35

 > There is something to be said for eliminating the name() function
 altogether ...

Yes, first determine what types of name functions you want (mangled,
demangled, compatible, unique, etc).
Then supply ALL those functions.

If one of them is called 'name()' and the class derives from
std::type_info, then probably it should return the same as the std one.
If lots of existing code is calling name()-but-raw_name()-on-MSVC then find
out what *meaning* they are giving the function, and supply that.
ie

fast_unique_name()

or whatever best describes the requirements.

But first determine the requirements (based on how std::ype_info::name() et
al is used in existing code).

Tony