Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [typeindex v3.0] Peer review begins Mon 21st ends Wed 30th

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 
><andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> >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
>compiler
>> >and
>> >platform has its own mangling rules and there are no rules for the
>> >demangled
>> >type names whatsoever.
>> 
>> The language standard specifies rules for the demangled names, does
>it not?
>
>No. The type_info::name() method returns some implementation-defined
>string 
>with no guarantees on its format. __func__ also has unspecified format.
>To my 
>knowledge, there are no other sources of type name strings in the
>language.

I wasn't clear. I meant that the language grammar specifies the syntax of the demangled names, though it permits lots of whitespace variation.

___
Rob

(Sent from my portable computation engine)