On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Bernd Schmidt <ber...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On 06/02/2010 01:42 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> The 'this->' is needed when the current class and base class are both
>>> templates and the name is declared in the base class, and not if it's
>>> declared in the current class. That is not likely to happen in a
>>> hurry while the convention is to not define any templates.
>>
>> Right, but it may happen some day. Also there is the issue of
>> clarity. I think it is clearer to see this->get() rather than get().
>
> gold is using this convention, isn't it? I think there's value in using
> similar or even identical conventions for both gold and gcc so that
> people hacking both don't need to learn two different sets.
yes, but:
(1) I suspect the community hacking GCC may be larger that the
community hacking gold
(2) I do not remember there was an extensive discussion about the style
used in gold
(3) you may be right about commonality in styles for both GCC and gold,
but that does not imply that whatever was decided for gold has to be
adopted straight by the GCC community.
As I matter of fact, I have comments about the conventions being put forward,
I do not know the proper way to get them reflected in the proposal.
There are lot of FUDs out there about what or what not to use (from C++). We
should be careful in not giving them more food that they already have.
