Richard Sandiford wrote: > David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I think the proposal is to get the semantics right first and then >> fix the syntax, not just leave the long, cumbersome flag. >> >> Creating a macro or alias could lead to confusion and creates an >> opportunity for divergence. >> > > I don't understand what you mean by the second sentence. The purpose of > the macro or alias is precisely to define what the agreed semantics are > (just as no_new_pseudos does now). My main concern... >
>From my point of view, my purpose to do this was to get all of the unnecessary garbage out of the middle end AND TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING STILL WORKED! > >> Once this initial find-and-replace substitution is done, I am sure >> that we all will be able to agree on way to rationalize the flags, but we >> do not need to make all of the changes simultaneously. >> > > ...was that it seems odd to remove an abstraction if we're intending > to add it back again (and it wasn't clear to me before that we _were_ > intending to add it back again). But if Kenny prefers to do it that > way -- and is indeed intending to "fix the syntax" -- then that's fine. > > I did the change this way because it is easy to clean up later and i happen to really dislike derived variables. Over time, these tend to be misused and redefined because the foo backend just needed it to be a "little bit" different. In retrospect, I was perhaps not the best person to do this change because I do not yet have the experience to look at the backends and simplify them. I think that ian's point is that had that been done, (and of course it can still be done), the justification for derived variables would have been less. > I liked Dave's suggestion too FWIW. > > Richard >
