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.
yeah, gcc::gimple::stmt::switch seems a bit excessive ;) > >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). personally I've become desensitized to cammel case, but how about switch_stmt, goto_stmt etc? imho its not that bad to be a little explicit these are statement types, but yet its pretty short. Trev > > jeff
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
