On 09/05/14 15:57, David Malcolm wrote:
One other aspect of my approach is that (believe it or not) I'm trying
to minimize the size of the changes, to avoid introducing pain when
backporting bugfixes from trunk to the branches.
Right. I believe and know you're trying to avoid unnecessary pain :-)
My goal here is type-safety, with readability as a secondary benefit.
Agreed. However, consistency with access is also important. But, yes,
we're really focused on moving on type safety here.
I
think it's a good idea for us to add methods that let us replace e.g.
XEXP (x, 0) accessors with descriptive names, and have been doing so,
and I prefer doing this as methods for new code.
As you undoubtly know, there's some resistance to that ;-) But in cases
where we can carve off things easily (like the list stuff) converting to
members, at least IMHO, is much cleaner. But I think we're a long way
from converting RTL as a whole.
However, when the
accessor already has a descriptive name, like LABEL_NUSES, I think it's
enough to convert them to inline functions and tighten up the params and
return type to express things. I'm not sure the cost/benefit of
*additionally* converting them to be methods is worth it, given that it
means changing the spelling at every callsite.
My feelings as well.
jeff
