On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Michael Matz <m...@suse.de> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 12 May 2014, David Malcolm wrote: > >> The "gfoo" type names are pleasantly terse, though I'm a little unhappy >> about how they no longer match the prefix of the accessor functions e.g. >> gimple_switch_num_labels (const gswitch *gs) >> vs >> gimple_switch_num_labels (const gimple_switch *gs) >> But it works. > > That could also be changed with a followup to make it consistent again > (i.e. rename the accessors to gswitch_num_labels). I'd be in favor of > such renaming later.
Yeah, or go all the way to member functions. I'd like to see this addresses as followup, together with a discussion on whether we want standalone or member functions here. Thanks, Richard. > > Ciao, > Michael.
