http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53822
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #6)
> Probably depends on cases. Sometimes it is good to have the explanation
> right next to the type, other times it takes up all the space and you can't
> even find the commas separating the arguments anymore (maybe if the whole
> {aka ...} block was a different color?).
That could be possible. On the other hand, the "{aka ...}" thing is not really
ideal (in general). Currently,
1) It is not translated
2) You need to know what "aka" means (not obvious relation with 'typedef')
3) It is not correctly quoted, that is, instead of "`NT {aka int}'", we should
print "`NT' {aka `int'}".
4) The "aka" should not be colored in the same way as the types. Fixing the
quoting will fix this.
5) Complex declarations lead to many repetitions of "aka": "`f(NT {aka int},UT
{aka unsigned int},DT {aka double int})'".
