--- Comment #4 from Don <> 2010-01-28 01:05:28 PST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> @Don: I'm pretty sure my bug report is correct. enums are the *only* type that
> behave different here. Further, if you get the mangle of a function or 
> template
> that use enums as parameters, the enum gets mangled using the type name, not
> the base type.
> Why do you think the current behavior would be correct? Why would .mangleof 
> for
> a type return the mangle for a completely *different* type?

Because enums aren't strong types. typeof(item) is int, not foo. 'foo' just
seems to be an alias for int. (I think the existing behaviour is stupid, BTW).

Configure issuemail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Reply via email to