[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gcc
Subject:    Re: definition of "implicit" inline?
From:       Marc Espie <espie () quatramaran ! ens ! fr>
Date:       2003-08-02 10:34:52
[Download RAW message or body]

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 :)
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]