On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 09:53:49PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 01:44:06PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > > On 05/05/14 11:37, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > >Well, I hope that Andrew doesn't do without a namespace (and I still > > >don't believe in what he tries to achieve without laying proper ground-work > > >throughout the compiler). With a namespace gimple we can use > > >gimple::stmt. > > namespaces, while nice, aren't going to solve all these issues. > > While I think we can get a good separation between gimple and the > > rest of the world, I suspect namespaces aren't going to help much > > with the statement vs expression vs type issues. > > > > Ultimately I suspect we're not going to have too many places where > > we can stick a "using namespace gimple-whatever", but time will > > tell. > > > > >Agreed on that, btw. But switch_ can't be the answer either. Maybe > > >swidch (similar do klass) or swjdch. Or swtch. I like swtch the best > > >(similar to stmt). > > As David pointed out there's several others that map to keywords. > > I'd rather set a standard here across the project so that we don't > > have folks using gto for goto, others using goto_, _goto, whatever. > > While swtch works well, I don't think the other examples work nearly > > as well. Thus some kind of prefix/suffix seems better to me (though > > I'm sure my eyes will bleed as a result of looking at those > > objects). > > But the prefix can be as short as e.g. "g" (for gimple), so gtry, ggoto, > gassign, gcall. > > Jakub
My thoughts exactly. (And I'd also leave the general statement type called gimple.) Martin
