ction for
>> each derived class you want to be able to convert to.
>
> Note quite equivalent, as you can implement to_specific with
> non-virtual classes using the TREE_CODE. Thus would could implement
> a type-save dynamic pointer converter before converting to virtual
> classes.
>
> OTOH, we could probably work up a template function that looks like
> dynamic_cast but uses the TREE_CODE instead, achieving the same
> intermediate step.
>
> I agree that it does clutter up the base class.
>
Template function may be not necessary.
And, virtual method is not necessary.
Just normal C functions can work if you have the type info of a given TREE_CODE.
> Shall we enable RTTI?
Are you prepared to remove all use of TREE_CODE ?
--
Chiheng Xu
> +
> +
> +
> +For long-term code, at least for now,
> +we will continue to use printf style I/O
> +rather than <iostream> style I/O.
> +For quick debugging code,
> +<iostream> is permitted.
> +
Is iostream really suitable or necessary for GCC ?
Have you think about writing another thinner interface , like Java's IO stream.
--
Chiheng Xu
