Re: mangling of function names

[Martin von Loewis <loewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> However, given that we aren't going to substitute it anyway, we could
> just relax our semantic considerations and place the (untyped) name of
> the function into the substitution candidate list, expecting that it
> would not be substituted later (though I suspect we could invent cases
> in which it might).

That's what I'd prefer - put it in the candidate list, even if you
know it won't be used. There are actually cases where it then would
get substituted:

struct klasse{
  struct methode{};
  void methode(struct methode);
};

void klasse::methode(struct methode){}

Now, if it is considered too difficult for implementations to detect
that substitution is needed here, or if it is unclear from the spec
whether substitution should happen - then that would make a point for
complicating the spec. Otherwise, I think this _ZN6klasse7methodeES0_.

Regards,
Martin