> 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

Reply via email to