> 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
