Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [typeindex v3.0] Peer review begins Mon 21st ends Wed 30th
From: Rob Stewart (robertstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-04-28 05:48:42
On April 27, 2014 1:47:22 PM EDT, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>On Sunday 27 April 2014 13:02:41 Rob Stewart wrote:
>> On April 27, 2014 10:43:27 AM EDT, Andrey Semashev
>> >On Friday 25 April 2014 09:25:45 Dominique Devienne wrote:
>> >> But what bothered me a little was the note about the fact that
>> >> pretty_name() was not consistent across platforms/compilers.
>> >There is generally no way to obtain a portable type name. Each
>> >platform has its own mangling rules and there are no rules for the
>> >type names whatsoever.
>> The language standard specifies rules for the demangled names, does
>No. The type_info::name() method returns some implementation-defined
>with no guarantees on its format. __func__ also has unspecified format.
>knowledge, there are no other sources of type name strings in the
I wasn't clear. I meant that the language grammar specifies the syntax of the demangled names, though it permits lots of whitespace variation.
(Sent from my portable computation engine)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk