This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8
- From: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>
- To: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Bernd Schmidt <bernds at codesourcery dot com>, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 01:14:15 +0200
- Subject: Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8
- References: <4F7B356E.9080003@google.com> <201204102312.37159.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <1334093345.11195.87.camel@triegel.csb>
> I can't derive a definition of "token" from your example that seems
> meaningful. It can't be parser tokens I assume, because you split
> GET_FIELD_DECL (but why in 2 not 3?).
FIELD_DECL is a single object, see tree.def.
> Following another comment in the thread, what are the concepts you'd
> like to be included, and which don't you want to be included? Next
> step, is this actually tied to saying FOO(exp) vs. exp->foo(), or could
> your favorite (compression of) concepts be as well expressed with the
> latter?
I'm entirely of DJ's opinion here: C vs C++ is not the same argument as style A
vs style B. I don't think that it would be desirable to fundamentally change
the current style, at least to start adding -> and . all over the place.
--
Eric Botcazou