This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: definition of "implicit" inline?


> 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!


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]