definition of "implicit" inline?

[Robert Dewar]

> Let's keep it simple and straight.  The example you gave is just that
> of an inline function, not implicit inline function.  There is nothing
> implicit about it.  It is an alternate syntax for defining an inline
> function.  Not a syntax for defining an implicit inline function.

I find this exegesis confusing and self serving. It seems quite fine to
refer to the form without inline has being implicitly inlined. Whether the
two forms should or should not be treated differently is another matter.

One might ask *why* are there two forms. Perhaps someone should quote the
exact language from the standard here.