> Think about programmers new to GCC for a second, and about code
> completion tools.  It seems to me that with such a tool it's much easier
> to navigate from exp to the field, than having to scan through a much
> larger number of accessor functions / macros (GET_*).  The former
> example starts at the source (exp) and yields/"builds" the result; the
> latter names some function and then says applies it to the source.  Why
> is the former so much worse?

Because it takes x3 characters/x3 time to type/x3 slots in your memory?

> To me, the former's structure is easier to see, and if I would have to put
> the spaghetti tag on something, then the latter.

Spaghetti isn't really the best wording, gratuitous obfuscation is better. :-)

-- 
Eric Botcazou

Reply via email to