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: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-04-28 05:54:41

On Monday 28 April 2014 05:48:42 Rob Stewart wrote:
> 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.

The problem is that those strings are not required to follow that syntax. And 
they don't in some cases.