[lworld] RFR: 8247357: Flattenable field concept needs some cleanup

[John Rose]

On Jun 10, 2020, at 12:30 PM, John Rose <john.r.rose at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> So I suggest:
> 
> s/is_flattenable/is_declared_inline/
> s/is_flattened/is_allocated_inline/
> 
> Maybe that’s overkill?  But I think just “is_inline” is not clear enough.

To be clear:  I’m not suggesting that systematically, just where
the distinction exists between “could be” and “actually is” flattened.
Names like STATIC_INLINE in the CFP are completely unambiguous;
they shouldn’t be STATIC_ALLOCATED_INLINE or the like.

In the CFP, “has_flattenable_fields” could go either way, but I think
“has_declared_inline_fields” would be safer.  It’s not clear whether it
means “my definer has declared inline fields in me”, or “I actually
flattened one or more of my fields”.