Probably trivial, but VERY frustrating compiler bug

Steven Schveighoffer schveiguy at
Fri Aug 14 13:51:42 UTC 2020

On 8/14/20 9:16 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Friday, 14 August 2020 at 12:47:01 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> As of now, there are three ways the compiler can give you names of a 
>> type:
> I actually personally use .mangleof when it doesn't have to be user 
> visible... and if it does, I'll just demangle parts of it (the first 
> part for the name is very simple, it is decimal-length-prefixed strings, 
> then you join them back with dot and you're done, it is the type info at 
> the end of the string that gets complicated to demangle).

I forgot about mangleof! A 4th string representation. But this one is 
well defined, and unrelated (mostly) to the other 3.

> It is pretty well defined and has certain guarantees for linking.

Yes, it depends on the use case for sure.

> That said, I'd probably be ok with improving the definitions! I'd still 
> tell people to never use it in mixins but it'd at least be ok for cases 
> like this then.

Using it in mixins is not a good idea anyway. If you have the type alias 
locally, use that.

But a consistent string representation would at least allow one to do 
*something* with that information.

In particular, if .stringof and typeid(classInstance).name were 
consistent, it would make things a lot easier.

That brings up another use case -- RTTI. Like if you wanted to implement 
Object.factory. A language-sanctioned way to say "when I use this 
string, I mean this type" unambiguously.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list