Re: [boost] Peer Review Report for proposed Boost.TypeIndex v2.1 Nov 12th – 21st 2013

Subject: Re: [boost] Peer Review Report for proposed Boost.TypeIndex v2.1 Nov 12th – 21st 2013
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-11-25 21:08:39

AMDG

On 11/25/2013 05:41 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 25 Nov 2013 at 23:35, Andrey Semashev wrote:
> 
>> I'll remind you again that std::type_info::name() is not required to return a 
>> mangled name, and __func__ is not required either. On a perfectly compliant 
>> implementation your mangled_name() would fail and that is not acceptable, IMO.
> 
> Unless I misunderstood something, the previous complaints about 
> name() was that it MUST return EXACTLY what 
> std::type_info::name()/raw_name() does. If it can't return EXACTLY 
> what name()/raw_name() does, it must not be there at all.
> 

I don't care what name() returns when std::type_info doesn't
exist.  I only care that the behavior be consistent, when
it's possible to use both together.

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe