Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
I’m fully aware that the return value of std::type_info::name() is implementation-defined.
From the C++ standard (ISO/IEC 14882:2003 §18.5.1.7):
Returns: an implementation-defined NTBS.
My question is: why? Wouldn’t this member function be much more useful if the standard dictated what the return value should be?
Basically, if an implementation decides that they can’t or doesn’t want to support RTTI, they can just
return "";. If the standard forced it to return something, they’d possibly kill any ability to have a compliant compiler for an environment where the resources for RTTI don’t exist or want to be disabled (a microchip, for example.)And let’s not forget we don’t want to force an ABI/name-mangling scheme on any compilers.
This follows the C++ philosophy “You don’t pay for things you don’t need.”