[PATCH] manage dom-walk_data initialization and finalization with constructors and destructors

[Jeff Law]

On 09/20/2013 02:13 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Richard Sandiford
> <rdsandiford@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> writes:
>>> What's the benefit of reading and writing such noisy lines? :
>>>
>>>        *out_mode = mode_;
>>>        mode_ = GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE (mode_);
>>>        count_++;
>>>
>>> The uglification merely makes code harder to write and read, it should be
>>> used in cases where you _don't_ want developers to write such names.
>>
>> Heh.  Since it's my code being used as the example here: I also find it
>> very ugly FWIW.  I only added the underscores because that's what the
>> conventions said.
>>
>> But we're never going to get consensus on this kind of thing.  E.g. I
>> know some people really hate the GNU formatting style (although I very
>> much like it).  So I just held my nose while writing the patch.
>
> Btw, I've come around multiple coding-styles in the past and I definitely
> would prefer m_mode / m_count to mark members vs. mode_ and count_.
> (and s_XXX for static members IIRC).
That would be fine with me.  If you want to propose this as a change to 
our coding standards, I'd support it.  Then it's just a matter of 
changing the existing code..  Sigh..

jeff