On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 19:59 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > Think about programmers new to GCC for a second, and about code > > completion tools. It seems to me that with such a tool it's much easier > > to navigate from exp to the field, than having to scan through a much > > larger number of accessor functions / macros (GET_*). The former > > example starts at the source (exp) and yields/"builds" the result; the > > latter names some function and then says applies it to the source. Why > > is the former so much worse? > > Because it takes x3 characters/x3 time to type/x3 slots in your memory?
I hope this is meant to be ironic. Or are you really saying that the number of characters determines how quickly/easily a brain can remember/find something like an API item/keyword/...? If so, and if we assume that GET, FIELD, and DECL are the most likely (sub-)parts of function names shouldn't it be G_F_D (exp) then? ;) Torvald
