> I can't derive a definition of "token" from your example that seems > meaningful. It can't be parser tokens I assume, because you split > GET_FIELD_DECL (but why in 2 not 3?).
FIELD_DECL is a single object, see tree.def. > Following another comment in the thread, what are the concepts you'd > like to be included, and which don't you want to be included? Next > step, is this actually tied to saying FOO(exp) vs. exp->foo(), or could > your favorite (compression of) concepts be as well expressed with the > latter? I'm entirely of DJ's opinion here: C vs C++ is not the same argument as style A vs style B. I don't think that it would be desirable to fundamentally change the current style, at least to start adding -> and . all over the place. -- Eric Botcazou
