From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C4C9385B834 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:45:14 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 7C4C9385B834 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark@simark.ca Received: from [10.0.0.11] (unknown [192.222.164.54]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 923C91E581; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 10:45:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/20] Rename struct attribute accessors To: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20200328192208.11324-1-tom@tromey.com> <20200328192208.11324-3-tom@tromey.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 10:45:13 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200328192208.11324-3-tom@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US-large Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:45:15 -0000 On 2020-03-28 3:21 p.m., Tom Tromey wrote: > This removes the "value_as_" prefix from the struct value accessors. > This seemed unnecessarily wordy to me. I would perhaps use "as_string" and "as_address" rather than just "string" and "address". At least for "address", it could be interpreted by some as returning the address (pointer) of the attribute object. The "as_" prefix makes me naturally read it as "interpret this attribute as a string", "interpret this attribute as an address". Not a big deal though, I'm also fine with the patch as-is. Simon