🚀 go-pugleaf

Just some personal tastes...

>>>>> "BG" == Bill Gibbons <bgibbons@best.com> writes:
[...]
BG>   * How are unnamed types handled?  For example:

BG>          struct { int x; } y;
BG>          typeid(y).name();
BG>          (possible answers - implementation dependent
BG>                              invented names based on ordinals)

How about "#none"?

BG>   * How are local types handled?  For example:

BG>          void f() { struct A { }; typeid(A).name(); }
BG>          void g() { struct A { }; typeid(A).name(); }

BG>          Are these two names the same?
BG>          (possible answers - yes, they are the same
BG>                              implementation dependent
BG>                              invented names based on function signature
BG>                                but only unique for external functions)

I like: "f()::A" and "g()::A" respectively (though I haven't checked
if that may lead to ambiguities or implementation difficulties).

BG> There is some chance that some canonical form will be recommended
BG> in a non-normative annex in the standard.

There was a thread here some time ago concluding that RTTI would be
considerably more convenient for purposes of object persistence and 
transportation if this could be standardized somehow.

	Daveed

[ 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://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html
]