On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Steven Bosscher <stevenb....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Richard Guenther > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> And we definitely should not do so just because we can. I see >> little value in turning our tree upside-down just because we now >> can use C++ and make everything a class rather than a union. > > If hiding the structure of the data types matters, then 'tree' should > be re-done as a class, shouldn't it? Otherwise, how are you going to > get rid of all the accessor macros and static inline functions that > only half-hide the underlying structures?
Well - if somebody does the work and _completely_ converts tree and its accessor functions and macros to use a class-based tree then more power to him. What I do not like to see is partial conversions to C++. Richard. > Ciao! > Steven >
