On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 01:44:06PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/05/14 11:37, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> >Well, I hope that Andrew doesn't do without a namespace (and I still
> >don't believe in what he tries to achieve without laying proper ground-work
> >throughout the compiler). With a namespace gimple we can use
> >gimple::stmt.
> namespaces, while nice, aren't going to solve all these issues.
> While I think we can get a good separation between gimple and the
> rest of the world, I suspect namespaces aren't going to help much
> with the statement vs expression vs type issues.
>
> Ultimately I suspect we're not going to have too many places where
> we can stick a "using namespace gimple-whatever", but time will
> tell.
>
> >Agreed on that, btw. But switch_ can't be the answer either. Maybe
> >swidch (similar do klass) or swjdch. Or swtch. I like swtch the best
> >(similar to stmt).
> As David pointed out there's several others that map to keywords.
> I'd rather set a standard here across the project so that we don't
> have folks using gto for goto, others using goto_, _goto, whatever.
> While swtch works well, I don't think the other examples work nearly
> as well. Thus some kind of prefix/suffix seems better to me (though
> I'm sure my eyes will bleed as a result of looking at those
> objects).
But the prefix can be as short as e.g. "g" (for gimple), so gtry, ggoto,
gassign, gcall.
Jakub
