definition of "implicit" inline?

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:

| So, the quotes from the standard make it clear that the explicit inline
| keyword is significant.

As significant as the notion of "inline function".  7.1.3/ is not
treated different.

| I have no idea how the standard could be read
| otherwise.
| 
| >   The inline specifier indicates to the implementation that inline
| >   substitution of the function body at the point of call is to be
| >   preferred to the usual function call mechanism.
| 
| Of course that's pretty meaningless given that all semantics is "as if". 
| Whenever the standard appears to demand a particular code sequence, 
| appearences are deceptive!

Only to someone that does not know why inlining is introduced in C++.

| > There is no consensus, either, that the current logic is good.  
| > I'm not shouting louder.  I'm just trying to get people to consider
| > the *language* _under discussion_ and to prevent them from transmuting
| > the intent of the keyword.  
| 
| But your quotes from the standard make it clear that no one is transmuting
| anything here.

Yes, the is transmuting.  That of saying that there is an implicit
inline and one that is explicit.

-- Gaby