🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <30BAE46C.2474@sophia.inria.fr>,
   Theodore Papadopoulo <papadop@sophia.inria.fr> wrote:
>First, it seems that I have not understood all of the rationale behind
>mangling scheme... I understand very well why names have to be encoded
>(althougth I do not understand at all why the return type is not a part
>of the encodind scheme). 

Because the return type is not part of a function's signature; for example, 
you can't overload based on return type:

	int  f(int i);
	long f(int i);	// error: redefinition, won't overload

	x = f(15);	// which f()?

So there's no point in mangling in the return type, since the mangled name 
will already be unique without it.  (Note, however, that const _is_ part of 
the signature.)

Herb


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Herb Sutter                 2228 Urwin, Ste 102         voice (416) 618-0184
Connected Object Solutions  Oakville ON Canada L6L 2T2    fax (905) 847-6019

[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]