2013/11/13 Niall Douglas
On 13 Nov 2013 at 14:28, Antony Polukhin wrote:
* const char* name() // same as std::type_info::name() * const char* raw_name() // mangled/short/not very readable name * std::string pretty_name() // was name_demangled()
Looks great to me.
I like it too. Now it is a drop in replacement that supports even the MSVC extensions.
I'm afraid I disagree - you're breaking the interface contract with std::type_info when RTTI is off.
Previous commenters may not realise that template_info::name() does NOT return the same value as type_info::name() when RTTI is off. It returns an internal unique const char * value, that's all.
Well, actually current implementation does return the same value. MSVC allows to use typeinfo for Types even with RTTI disabled, so it is possible to do so.
Can I suggest this instead: instead of making boost::type_info more like the flawed std::type_info, can you leave boost::type_info to be pure and instead add a new boost::type_info_std or something which does replicate std::type_info's implementation specific quirks?
That way we get boost::type_info being as std::type_info ought to have been, while those who really need std::type_info to be quirky get boost::type_info_std as a direct replacement? I personally suspect that the pure unquirky boost::type_info will in fact be a more popular std::type_info replacement once authors think it through.
I do not think that multiplying entities is good. It's better to have a single class that suits (almost) all the situations. -- Best regards, Antony Polukhin