26 Nov
2013
26 Nov
'13
2:08 a.m.
AMDG On 11/25/2013 05:41 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
On 25 Nov 2013 at 23:35, Andrey Semashev wrote:
I'll remind you again that std::type_info::name() is not required to return a mangled name, and __func__ is not required either. On a perfectly compliant implementation your mangled_name() would fail and that is not acceptable, IMO.
Unless I misunderstood something, the previous complaints about name() was that it MUST return EXACTLY what std::type_info::name()/raw_name() does. If it can't return EXACTLY what name()/raw_name() does, it must not be there at all.
I don't care what name() returns when std::type_info doesn't exist. I only care that the behavior be consistent, when it's possible to use both together. In Christ, Steven Watanabe