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

[Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>]

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).

jeff