Hi, On Thu, 24 Apr 2014, David Malcolm wrote:
> Implicit naming > =============== > Several people have suggested that the "gimple_" prefix is redundant. Not generally though (for instance I find it redundant in the cast-method names, but _not_ in the global types). > Andrew MacLeod suggested in: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg01297.html > that we could simple drop the "gimple_" prefix. Combining this with the > pointer approach, for example, gives: > > - gimple def, loop_phi, phi, close_phi = stmt; > - tree init, lhs, arg = gimple_phi_arg_def (close_phi, 0); > + gimple *def; > + phi *loop_phi, *phi, *close_phi = as_a <phi *> (stmt); That is, I'm not fond of a global type named just "phi" or "bind" or "assign". There the gimple_ prefix is sort of fine, we could perhaps trade it for a _t suffix though (phi_t, assign_t? hmm don't know, still feels too broad). But for method names (that necessarily don't conflict with method names from other classes or even just with local variable names) such prefixes are useless. For similar reasons I find the "as_a_" prefix too verbose in method names, "as_" is enough to convey the meaning. OTOH the awkward _a suffix is necessary for the globally named templates to not clash with single word names of local variable like "as" or "is". That is, methods simply can be named much more sensible and still be shorter than global entities as they always carry class context with them. I'm sorta fond of methods :) Ciao, Michael.
