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
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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk