From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3985 invoked by alias); 31 Jul 2003 11:02:52 -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 3972 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2003 11:02:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO uniton.integrable-solutions.net) (62.212.99.186) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Jul 2003 11:02:50 -0000 Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h6VB2TSu028865; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:02:29 +0200 Received: (from gdr@localhost) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h6VB2SpK028864; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:02:28 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: uniton.integrable-solutions.net: gdr set sender to gdr@integrable-solutions.net using -f To: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, martin@MPA-Garching.MPG.DE Subject: Re: definition of "implicit" inline? References: <20030731105438.06F66F2E1A@nile.gnat.com> From: Gabriel Dos Reis In-Reply-To: <20030731105438.06F66F2E1A@nile.gnat.com> Organization: Integrable Solutions Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 12:41:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg02300.txt.bz2 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