Hi, On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> >> > exp->as_component_ref().get_field() .. > > Actually it's not questionable. The above stuff is _horrible_. > > Specifics please. It is _horrible_ because you are more used to the > existing way and the new style does not match your taste or they are > very hard to understand and use? Your style (I wouldn't call it The New Style) is visually distracting, and therefore harder to understand and use, longer to write and full of syntactic noise without any whitespace. Quite frankly, how anyone could ever say that exp->as_component_ref().get_field() is easier to read/write/use than GET_FIELD_DECL (exp) (say when we #define GET_FIELD_DECL(x) TREE_OPERAND(x,1)), with or without all-caps, is completely beyond me. I pretty much hope that we never see the ugliness of the first way in GCCs code base. Even in C++ it's possible to write non-spaghetti code. Ciao, Michael.
