Re: [PATCH 0/3] Compile-time gimple checking, without typedefs

[Martin Jambor <mjambor at suse dot cz>]

On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 09:53:49PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 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

My thoughts exactly.  (And I'd also leave the general statement type
called gimple.)

Martin