"Brendan Jurd" <direvus@gmail.com> writes:
> Now I'm thinking I leave the grammar rules alone (apart from making it
> legal to specify an empty list of elements), and instead push the
> typename down into the child node from makeTypeCast(), if the child is
> an A_ArrayExpr. Does that work better?
Actually, if you do that you might as well forego the separate node type
(which requires a nontrivial amount of infrastructure). I think it
would work just about as well to have transformExpr check whether the
argument of a TypeCast is an ArrayExpr, and if so call
transformArrayExpr directly from there, passing the TypeName as an
additional argument. Kinda ugly, but not really any worse than the way
A_Const is handled in that same routine. (In fact, we could use the
same technique to get rid of the typename field in A_Const ... might
be worth doing?)
regards, tom lane
