[RFC] type safe trees

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

You Wrote Nathan Sidwell
> Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> So, we don't want C++, we find C too restrictive in the expressive
>> power it gives us and we end up inventing a new language we
>> have to learn?
> yes, because C++ is not a perfect match either

I was not pretending C++ is a perfect match, but surely there is
a good subset of C++ that enhances C to the point of having
something better.  From the sketch of the new "language",
I'm skeptical that it is a perfect match.

>
>> If we were going to teach gentype a new language and use it
>> for anything, I would strongly suggest we teach it a *subset* of
>> C++ that is simple enought to get it generate the C bits we
>> want out of it.
> I thought about this and doing it in C++ syntax would still require
> munging to produce accessor macros and tables of node sizes/class and
> other associated stuff.  We have created and used little languages in gcc
> already,

Agreed.  But I hardly see that as an excuse to add yet another
one.

> this one's fairly simple.

-- Gaby