From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11256 invoked by alias); 13 Apr 2012 23:33:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 11233 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Apr 2012 23:33:03 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-we0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-we0-f175.google.com) (74.125.82.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 23:32:47 +0000 Received: by wera1 with SMTP id a1so2543236wer.20 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:32:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.73.143 with SMTP id l15mr180202wiv.11.1334359966413; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:32:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.99] (cpc3-cmbg8-0-0-cust629.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com. [82.6.102.118]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o2sm336405wiv.11.2012.04.13.16.32.44 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:32:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4F88B7BE.7040803@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 23:33:00 -0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Botcazou CC: Torvald Riegel , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Michael Matz , Xinliang David Li , Jakub Jelinek , Richard Guenther , Bernd Schmidt , Gabriel Dos Reis , David Edelsohn , Diego Novillo Subject: Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8 References: <4F7B356E.9080003@google.com> <201204110114.16666.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <1334177773.3101.165.camel@triegel.csb> <201204112313.55151.ebotcazou@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <201204112313.55151.ebotcazou@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg00613.txt.bz2 On 11/04/2012 22:13, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> So, you only know it's 2 tokens once you know all of tree.def? I'm >> aware that this is just some arbitrary example, but I believe this >> actually strengthens the concern I had. > > Well, if you don't know of FIELD_DECL, you won't go very far, really. > But still, wouldn't it be nice and enhance clarity to be able to use a different character/token between GET and FIELD_DECL than between FIELD and DECL? (Anyway, I still think we should start by just redefining GET_FIELD_DECL et. al. as C++ inline functions - or macros that invoke C++ inline functions, or whatever else that works better for whatever reason, regardless of the implementation details - and let the existing code continue to use them in exactly the same way as before.) cheers, DaveK