On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > And we definitely should not do so just because we can. I see > little value in turning our tree upside-down just because we now > can use C++ and make everything a class rather than a union.
If hiding the structure of the data types matters, then 'tree' should be re-done as a class, shouldn't it? Otherwise, how are you going to get rid of all the accessor macros and static inline functions that only half-hide the underlying structures? Ciao! Steven
