From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7115 invoked by alias); 31 Jul 2003 11:08:02 -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 7106 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2003 11:08:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Jul 2003 11:08:01 -0000 Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338) id 1CDCAF2E19; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:08:01 -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: <20030731110801.1CDCAF2E19@nile.gnat.com> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:12:00 -0000 From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg02302.txt.bz2 > Certainly, but you asked for the reason -why- we had two syntaxes to > say the same thing in the first place. That is the reason. > I think that anyone who seriously wants to argue about C++ should > read its history and especially "The Design and Evolution of C++" or > else he would miss the most important points and do bogus claims. > That, probably, is a key difference between Ada and C++. No, you miss my point. There is an ISO standard for C++. The meaning of C++ is entirely contained within this history *WITHOUT* any reference to history. That's the fundamental meaning of an ISO standard. So from a formal point of view, an implementor need look only at the ISO standard. Now, in cases where the standard does not prescribe things, it is fine (in both C++ and Ada, there is absolutely no difference here, you are imagining a difference, after all Ada is older than C++ from a standards point of view :-) to take normal usage into account. But your (somewhat hysterical I must say) claims that all C++ programmers behave in a certain way with regard to the use and expectations of inline is clearly unsupportable. Why? Because clearly just from the input on the list, there is no such consensus. You can't make a consensus by shouting louder. So there really seems a problem that, to a much greater extent than is the case with Ada, the programmer's intentions are not so clear with respect to inline.