On 10/04/2012 17:24, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>
>>>>> exp->as_component_ref().get_field() ..
>
>>> Actually it's not questionable. The above stuff is _horrible_.
>> Specifics please. It is _horrible_ because you are more used to the
>> existing way and the new style does not match your taste or they are
>> very hard to understand and use?
>
> Your style (I wouldn't call it The New Style) is visually distracting, and
> therefore harder to understand and use, longer to write and full of
> syntactic noise without any whitespace. Quite frankly, how anyone could
> ever say that
>
> exp->as_component_ref().get_field()
>
> is easier to read/write/use than
>
> GET_FIELD_DECL (exp)
>
> (say when we #define GET_FIELD_DECL(x) TREE_OPERAND(x,1)), with or without
> all-caps, is completely beyond me. I pretty much hope that we never see
> the ugliness of the first way in GCCs code base. Even in C++ it's
> possible to write non-spaghetti code.
So isn't
#define GET_FIELD_DECL(exp) ((exp)->as_component_ref().get_field())
the simple solution to that one?
cheers,
DaveK
