Re: definition of "implicit" inline?

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

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