From 9191178266631199198 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,83aac58a7c7d6c46 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public From: Martin von Loewis Subject: Re: Advice: C9X's __func__ on C++ Date: 1999/06/09 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 487480697 Approved: Fergus Henderson References: X-Original-Date: 09 Jun 1999 12:13:05 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Complaints-To: news@news.unimelb.edu.au X-Trace: izvestia.its.unimelb.edu.au 928933831 10597 128.250.29.16 (9 Jun 1999 13:10:31 GMT) Organization: Humboldt-University Berlin, Department of Computer Science X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.std.c++ iQBFAgUAN15nuOEDnX0m9pzZAQGdaQF+NkTbKweZf8JwZfhV+eAt+/zPNp1W7dYu UrwFISODsiX3Oe3eXuBWnLtm/IgACK1x =Iu8T Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106) NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Jun 1999 13:10:31 GMT Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ bcombee@metrowerks.com (Ben Combee) writes: > I want advice on what the contents of this should be for our C++ > compiler. C9X defines the name to be the simple name of the function, > so for a function called foo, it would be "foo". With overloading > and namespaces, just using "foo" seems insufficient for the C++ version > of this, but on the other hand, using a namespace-complete form with > expanded argument list seems like overkill. > > Any advice? I'd personally favor a complete name of the function, in some way. Since it is an area of personal taste, I'd prefer if compiler vendors define something in their implementations. After a while, we'll see what kind of tradition has been established, and perhaps that could then become normative. Please note that the 'full name' proposal is even more complex than that, in the presence of template instantiations and methods of local classes. Regards, Martin --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]