Re: PATCH: New hook for custom-mangling of C++ scalars

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

Ziemowit Laski <zlaski@apple.com> writes:

| > | Anyhoo, I'll incorporate your prose (most of which I agree with) into
| > | the next version of my patch, and we can iterate from there.
| > |
| > | (Come to think of it, we should do something about the
| > _pretty-printing_
| > | of these types.  Currently, error messages refer to nonsensical
| > things
| > | like '__bool int __vector__' and '__bool short __vector__'.  I'll
| > whip
| > | up a separate patch.)
| >
| > What do you think would make sense?  I'm asking because I'm working
| > currently in that area.
| 
| '__vector', followed by the element type (e.g., '__vector __bool int',
| '__vector __bool short'); at least this is what AltiVec requires.  If
| other targets (e.g., MMX) require other human-readable forms, then we
| would need another hook.

With the big caveat that I'm not an English native speaker, I've
however come across expressions like "Int list", "Float list"
(e.g. particularly in the Standard ML and derived communities), so I
would think that "int __vector__" sounds English as well.  
A reason I'm not fan of "__vector int" is that it is easily mistaken
for "vector<int>" which is a different beast.

(Note too, that the C standard seems to establish the coding style
covention of "T _Complex".  In C++ however, it would be "_Complex T".
Oh well).

-- Gaby