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 06:03:16

On April 28, 2014 5:54:41 AM EDT, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>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.

If they have the required information, however it may be encoded, all that's needed is to resemble it. Is that out of scope?

___
Rob

(Sent from my portable computation engine)