From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
To: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, martin@MPA-Garching.MPG.DE
Subject: Re: definition of "implicit" inline?
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 12:41:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m3d6frj6wr.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030731105438.06F66F2E1A@nile.gnat.com>
dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:
| > 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!
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++.
-- Gaby
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-07-31 11:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-07-31 11:59 Robert Dewar
2003-07-31 12:41 ` Gabriel Dos Reis [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-07-31 13:53 Robert Dewar
2003-07-31 13:58 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2003-07-31 14:00 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2003-07-31 13:12 Robert Dewar
2003-07-31 13:37 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2003-08-02 17:21 ` Marc Espie
2003-07-31 11:02 Robert Dewar
2003-07-31 11:04 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2003-07-31 10:02 Martin Reinecke
2003-07-31 10:08 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2003-07-31 10:50 ` Andreas Schwab
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m3d6frj6wr.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net \
--to=gdr@integrable-solutions.net \
--cc=dewar@gnat.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=martin@MPA-Garching.MPG.DE \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).