typeid() broken for interfaces?

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Thursday, December 06, 2012 12:03:14 foobar wrote:
> But these are the methods of Object. So even if Object itself
> remains it looses its meaning. So are we going to keep Object
> just for backwards compatibility? Is there any point left keeping
> the single root design?

It's would still be perfectly possible to pass around Object if you wanted to. 
You just couldn't call much on it without casting it to something else first. 
Perhaps there's less reason to have it, but no one ever suggested that we get 
rid of it. Having those functions on Object has harmed us. Having a common 
base type hasn't.

But much as it was decided on, nothing has happened yet, so who knows how the 
transition will be done.

- Jonathan M Davis