inlining...

[Manu]

On 15 March 2014 14:33, Daniel Murphy <yebbliesnospam at gmail.com> wrote:

> "Manu" <turkeyman at gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.128.1394856947.
> 23258.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
>
>  > Haven't we already agreed a pragma for force inline should be >
>> implemented. Or is
>> > that something I have dreamed?
>>
>> It's been discussed. I never agreed to it (I _really_ don't like it), but
>> I'll take it if it's the best
>> I'm gonna get.
>>
>> I don't like stateful attributes like that. I think it's error prone,
>> especially when it's silent.
>> 'private:' for instance will complain if you write a new function in an
>> area influenced by the
>> private state and try and call it from elsewhere; ie, you know you made
>> the mistake.
>> If you write a new function in an area influenced by the forceinline
>> state which wasn't intended
>> to be inlined, you won't know. I think that's dangerous.
>>
>
> Huh?  The pragma could easily be restricted to apply to exactly one
> function declaration, if that's what's desired.
>

Then why bother with a pragma?
It's just a special case for the sake of a special case... I don't see why
resist the language conventions. Where's the precedent for that? It just
sounds like it's asking to cause edge cases and trouble down the line.
Is it gonna get messy when it involves with templates? What about methods,
sub-functions?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20140315/73be5138/attachment.html>