------- Comment #22 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-30 01:42 ------- (In reply to comment #21) > I suspect Andrew Pinski's point might be that what() could return a > string that represents the name of the most derived type of the > exception. But, nothing so far forces to do that. A reasonable > definition is to what Paolo suggest, with clear documentation (that > mentions this).
Agreed. Gaby, do you have any strong opinion about std::exception itself? In my current patch draft I'm leaving it alone, but in principle we could change also its what() to return "std::exception" instead of typeid(*this).name(). In other terms, I'm not sure whether your Comment #13 contrary to the mangled typeid applies also to the base std::exception... -- 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. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
