More mangling issues

[Martin von Loewis]

> Good point.  So the original mangling _Z3fooPPM2ABFiE, is invalid.

It depends. I'd say the grammar was wrong, and should read

<encoding> ::= <name> [ <function parameters> ]
<function parameters> ::= <type>*

The question is whether '? foo(int)' should be '_Z3fooi' or
'_Z3fooFiE'. It would work either way. The original draft had the
first version, the new grammar the second.

> Note that since yesterday's message I've converted the examples to a
> table to make it easier to read, and in the process I fixed most of
> them.  Most, if not all, of the fixes involved inserting the F...E
> delimiters around function types.

Was there a deliberate decision to change the mangling? I think
neither is 'better' than the other, so I don't care too much...

Mrtin