This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Merge C++ conversion into trunk (4/6 - hash table rewrite)
- From: Lawrence Crowl <crowl at google dot com>
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Richard Guenther <rguenther at suse dot de>, Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:30:00 -0700
- Subject: Re: Merge C++ conversion into trunk (4/6 - hash table rewrite)
- References: <20120812201408.GA14869@google.com> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1208151453010.28649@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1208151534410.28649@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1208151547100.2706@wotan.suse.de> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1208151617190.28649@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <502BCB81.1020207@redhat.com>
On 8/15/12, Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 2012-08-15 07:29, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > + typedef typename Element::Element_t Element_t;
>
> Can we use something less ugly than Element_t?
> Such as
>
> typedef typename Element::T T;
>
> ? Given that this name is scoped anyway...
I've been finding the use of T as a typedef confusing. It sort of
flies in the face of all existing convention. The C++ standard would
use either element_type or value_type. I suggest a rename, but I'm
guessing that folks don't want something as verbose as element_type.
How about elemtype? Any objections to me changing it to that?
--
Lawrence Crowl