From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14373 invoked by alias); 2 Aug 2003 10:35:07 -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 14359 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2003 10:35:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nef.ens.fr) (129.199.96.32) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Aug 2003 10:35:02 -0000 Received: from quatramaran.ens.fr (quatramaran.ens.fr [129.199.129.64]) by nef.ens.fr (8.12.9/1.01.28121999) with ESMTP id h72AZ1ko098767 for ; Sat, 2 Aug 2003 12:35:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from espie@localhost) by quatramaran.ens.fr (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h72AYq932323; Sat, 2 Aug 2003 12:34:52 +0200 Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2003 17:21:00 -0000 From: Marc Espie Message-Id: <200308021034.h72AYq932323@quatramaran.ens.fr> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: definition of "implicit" inline? X-Newsgroups: ens.mailing-lists.egcs.general In-Reply-To: <20030731110801.1CDCAF2E19@nile.gnat.com> Organization: Ecole Normale Superieure (quatramaran) Cc: X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00054.txt.bz2 I think you're jumping on Gaby for the wrong reasons. C++ has an `inline' concept. Both syntactic forms, the one with the inline keyword, and the one that declares the method within the class, are equivalent. Now, what the compiler does with the corresponding code is something else. As long as it behaves `as if' the function body had been substituted in place, it is fine. But making or implying a semantic distinction between both syntactic forms is a bad idea, which is why Gaby is strongly against the name `implicit inline' for a semantic distinction. C++ is a large language. Even with an existing standard, it still has an history. This history muddles things up. Heck, old versions of g++ muddle things up even more. And new stuff in C99 won't help. Trying to keep things as simple as they can be, as Gaby is doing, is a good thing. Or maybe you are shooting down C++ for its lack of precise semantics, especially compared to Ada ? Well, you're definitely right there, but that doesn't make Gaby wrong :)