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

[Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>]

On 05/05/14 02:22, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Also, AIUI, Andrew is looking at introducing concepts of gimple types and
> > gimple expressions, so "gimple" may no longer imply a *statement*.
> >
> > Alternatively, we could make the base class be just "gimple" (which would
> > be more consistent with the names of the accessor functions).
>
> I strongly prefer to name it 'gimple', not 'gimple_stmt'.  Because it's less
> to type, and because it will make all other types shorter as well.  And because
> 'gimple' _is_ a stmt right now, so gimple_stmt is redundant.  Same applies
> to gimple_stmt_with_FOO, just make it gimple_with_FOO.
>
> I understand the namespace issue, but we don't have a namespace right now.
> Also gimple::gimple works just fine, no?
But this approach is going to be inconsistent with Andrew's work, right? 
 ISTM we'd end up with something like...

So statements would be "gimple"
types would be "gimple_type"
expressions would be "gimple_expr"

It's a bit of bikeshedding, but I'd prefer "gimple_stmt".  If you really 
feel strongly about it, I'll go along without objection, but it seems 
wrong to me.


> > There's also the "bargain basement" namespaces approach, where we don't
> > have an implicit "gimple" namespace, but just *pretend* we do, and rename
> > the base type to "stmt", with e.g. "gimple_statement_phi" becoming just
> > "phi". ["gimple_switch" would need to become "switch_", say, to avoid the
> > reserved word].
>
> Ick (for the 'switch' case ... CamelCase anyone? :)).
:-)  Please, no....

Jeff