Hi, On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Well, this is what I was actually afraid of. If things like generic > or tree dump of a tree value is selected by new TDF_ flags, then you > are in danger of just replacing current mess in function names by a > mess of constants. I'd much rather have functions dump_generic, > dump_tree (and dump_function!), with consistent parameters, for the > three very different dumps than TDF_gimple, TDF_tree and TDF_function > constants which would do some sort of second level function > overloading. I understand my approach would not be a real grand > unification, but I believe that either way we'll have to remember a > few identifiers to make dumping useful. And <tab>-completion is faster with different function names than when the larger layout (in contrast to some little details) is determined by a flag. Look: (gdb) dump_s<tab>tuff (t, TDF_f<tab>unction) vs (gdb) dump_f<tab>unction (t) So, yes, the larger layouting should be determined by name of the dump function. A flag argument might look nice from an interface design perspective, but it's harder to use in the debugger. Ciao, Michael.
