On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Michael Matz <m...@suse.de> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Michael Matz <m...@suse.de> wrote: >> [...] >> > The method name should imply the action, e.g. 'add_stmt' or append_stmt >> > or the like. >> >> strongly agreed. >> [...] >> >> > All in all I think we can severely improve on building gimple statements >> > without introduction of any helper class. Basically, whenever a helper >> > class merely contains one member of a different type, then I think that >> > other type should be improved so that the wrapper class isn't necessary >> > anymore. Fewer types -> good :) >> >> no, it is the opposite. Distinct abstractions should be materialized > > But the proposed improvements aren't distinct abstractions at all, they > are interface cleanups and idiom shortenings. That's my point, those > improvements should be made to the interface of the gimple type, so that > working with that one becomes nicer, instead of adding an > abstractiong with which working is easier than with gimple directly. > > It's not that our gimple interface is cast in stone so that we have to > wrap it to improve it. We can _directly_ improve it.
Without examples to show otherwise, I tend to agree with your point. David > >> by distinct types. => less opportunities for bugs. > > > Ciao, > Michael.
