------- Additional Comments From pme at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-03-11 07:35 ------- > Honestly, is "std::bad_alloc" really that much more readable than > "St9bad_alloc"?
The former is at least readable C++. More importantly, it's what 'new' is documented as throwing, so a programmer reading (good) documentation for operator new will see "std::bad_alloc". > Especially compared to "bad allocation"? Sure, we could change that. I don't think "bad allocation" is any better than the demangled type name, but we shouldn't be printing a mangled typeid. Others felt differently. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14493 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.