Re: std::pow implementation

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>]

dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:

| > I did appeal to two sources: both the ISO standard and "The Design and
| > Evolution of C++".  I included the ISO standard definition because it
| > gives the wording on the current C++ definition and it is the result
| > long elaboration on wordings that took many resources, just to make
| > sure that thee substitution meaning is conveyed.  I did also appeal
| > to the D&E because it does give references to the raison d'etre of
| > inline in C++.  You might choose to ignore that C++ is an "evolved"
| > language and ignore its history, but that is a not mistake I would
| > like GCC to make.  C++ simply is not Ada.
| 
| The standard is a stand alone document, approved by ISO as such. It's meaning
| if it has any meaning must be able to be deduced from its intrinsic content
| like any other language standard. You cannot apply "history" to its
| interpretation. 

I do not appeal to its history for interpretation.  I do appeal to its
story to make sure that people arguing for "inlining in general" do
have all the context in mind.  And no, the ISO standard does not
contain all the context of every feature.  If you don't know history,
you know nothing.

[...]

| The Ada standard does have a useful innovation from a pragmatic point of view

C++ is not Ada and Ada is C++. 

-- Gaby