On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> wrote: > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:09, Steven Bosscher <stevenb....@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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? > > I agree. Richard, why do you think turning tree into an appropriate > class hierarchy would not be useful?
It's a lot of work (tree extends in all three Frontends, middle-end and backends). And my fear is we'll only get a halfway transition - something worse than no transition at all. Richard. > > Diego. >
