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: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- Cc: 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: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:59:32 +0200
- Subject: Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8
- References: <4F7B356E.9080003@google.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1204101814180.25409@wotan.suse.de> <1334078968.11195.64.camel@triegel.csb>
> Think about programmers new to GCC for a second, and about code
> completion tools. It seems to me that with such a tool it's much easier
> to navigate from exp to the field, than having to scan through a much
> larger number of accessor functions / macros (GET_*). The former
> example starts at the source (exp) and yields/"builds" the result; the
> latter names some function and then says applies it to the source. Why
> is the former so much worse?
Because it takes x3 characters/x3 time to type/x3 slots in your memory?
> To me, the former's structure is easier to see, and if I would have to put
> the spaghetti tag on something, then the latter.
Spaghetti isn't really the best wording, gratuitous obfuscation is better. :-)
--
Eric Botcazou