Richard Henderson <r...@redhat.com> writes: > On 11/15/2012 04:10 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> "next" was supposed to be "find and return another mode" rather than "++". >> Did you think it was confusing because "next" sounded too much like >> the latter? > > I wasn't keen on "next" being find-and-return, though I didn't > actually find it confusing. And perhaps rather than bikeshed > this too much now, we should table this for revision in 4.9... > >> I hadn't thought about an operator bool terminator. I agree that's >> probably simpler, but do any libstdc++ classes have the same thing? >> It doesn't feel any more standard than the "while (get_more)" idiom to me, >> but that's probably just my ignorance of C++. > > ... when we can attack all the iterators. > > No, you're right that operator bool as a terminator isn't standard. > Though for many purposes it seems better than the "!= fake_end_object" > semantics that we'd have to use otherwise. > > That's a discussion that we should have generally as we find our > feet with C++ in GCC. > > Unless Eric has any strong objections, I think this patch is ok. > And thus the entire patch set, as I havn't seen anything else that > raises a red flag.
Thanks. Committed with the changes Eric asked for after retesting on x86_64-linux-gnu, powerpc64-linux-gnu and mipsisa64-elf. Richard
