Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 14:46:52 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 2 questions about C++ support in 2.2 Message-ID: <7322.858034012@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 10 Mar 1997 15:31:08 MST." <199703102231.PAA23772@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I defer to Warner for a better analysis... (ducks and runs). I was sort of hoping that Warner might help me solve it, yes.. :) > > 2. Shouldn't these messages demange the symbol first, so you don't > > have to hassle with c++filt? I thought we were here once before > > .. > > You'd have to demange it for attribution of paramters, since you > could have a conflict declaration, and if you demanged it to not > show any attribution of paramters or return value, you'd never > figure out where the hell you screwed up. 8-). I like how my own typo (demange vs demangle) was not only replicated multiple times in my own posting (I guess my eye just saw the previous instance and cloned it) but into Terry's reply as well. :-) Either that or Terry, like me, thought that "demange" was actually a far more descriptive metaphor for c++ symbol munging. If ever there was a language with a serious case of the mange, it's C++. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7322.858034012>