From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27558 invoked by alias); 31 Jul 2003 10:54:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 27431 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2003 10:54:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Jul 2003 10:54:38 -0000 Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338) id 06F66F2E1A; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 06:54:38 -0400 (EDT) To: dewar@gnat.com, gdr@integrable-solutions.net Subject: Re: definition of "implicit" inline? Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, martin@MPA-Garching.MPG.DE Message-Id: <20030731105438.06F66F2E1A@nile.gnat.com> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:59:00 -0000 From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg02298.txt.bz2 > I already give the reasons at multiple occasions in this debate with > the appropriate quotes. > The reason is mostly historic (see "The Design and Evolution of C++", > section "Run-Time Efficiency"). > When inlining was orginally introduced in C with Classes, the only > syntax available was definition within the class declaration and > inlining was considered only for member functions. Later, the keyword > "inline" was introduced to permit inlining request for functions not > defined within a class. There is no slight difference nor implication > that one form is superior to the other in terms of request. history is not normative!