----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Boost mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 7:59 AM Subject: Re: [boost] Re: How to convert a template parameter into a string
> Robert Allan Schwartz wrote: > >>> I believe a "standardized" (within Boost), portable, and *readable* > >>> text representation of T makes my proposal better than typeid(). > >> > >> I think if readability is the main criterion we'd do much better to > >> invest in decoding the typeids generated by GCC. I believe there's > >> even a library that comes with it that does that job. > > > > Why should millions of programmers have to make that "invest"ment? > > > > Wouldn't it be better if gcc simply generated better type names? > > Sure, if there existed an unambiguous definition of "better type name". Maybe there's no "perfect" definition of "better", but let's see how far we can go with a "good-enough" definition. T is P4base T is 4base T is PC4base T is 4base when compiled by g++ and executed in cygwin, is "not good enough". Anyone disagree? T is class base * T is class base T is class base const * T is class base when compiled and executed by MSVC 6.0, is "good enough", but it could be "better" if it eliminated the redundant "class" specifier. We could argue about the difference between "base const *" and "base const*" (i.e. whitespace). We could argue about the difference between "base const" and "const base". But I still think we should fix the gap in the Standard, and choose standard, portable, type names. If we don't do that, then at least my proposal lets each developer choose what THEY want for type names. Robert _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost