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

28 Apr 2014


      On April 28, 2014 5:54:41 AM EDT, Andrey Semashev  wrote:
...
...
On April 27, 2014 1:47:22 PM EDT, Andrey Semashev 
 wrote:
...
On Sunday 27 April 2014 13:02:41 Rob Stewart wrote:
...
On April 27, 2014 10:43:27 AM EDT, Andrey Semashev
 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
...
...
...
...
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
On Monday 28 April 2014 05:48:42 Rob Stewart wrote:
the
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)