This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH]: Avoid C++ keywords in the FORTRAN directory
- From: Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu>
- To: Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at verizon dot net>
- Cc: "Kaveh R. GHAZI" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:59:48 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Avoid C++ keywords in the FORTRAN directory
- References: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0807171426130.6140@caipclassic.rutgers.edu> <487FE664.3030408@verizon.net>
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 05:40:04PM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> >
> >I thought it would be better to instead change the header and add a macro
> >to catch all C modules. Then each file could be done separately, and when
> >complete the macro could be removed. Or if the fortran maintainers prefer
> >the old naming scheme, (i.e. if you all like "enum try") then we could
> >just leave the defines in there call it finished.
> >
> >This way also let's me get feedback on the naming decisions before going
> >forward. The current changes I picked are:
> >
> >try -> attempt
> >protected -> is_protected
> >operator -> op
> >new -> is_new
> >
> >
> In the absence of anyone else commenting I would suggest the following:
>
> try -> gfc_try if gfc_try is not already used
> protected -> is_protected
> operator -> oper
Go with op. If you look in gfc_expr, you'll find uop is
used with the gfc_user_op structure.
> new -> gfc_new if not already used
>
> Also, since this is a fairly mechanical patch, I do not see why it can
> not just go straight in as long as it is bootstrapped. Or, one could
> consider doing one patch for each keyword. That will simplify the
> review process.
>
Otherwise, I agree with everything you wrote.
--
Steve