inlining...

Manu turkeyman at gmail.com
Mon Mar 17 06:26:33 PDT 2014


On 15 March 2014 14:55, Manu <turkeyman at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?
>

*bump*
I actually care about this a whole lot more than final-by-default right now
;)

I'd like to think there's a possible solution to these problems that
everyone agrees with.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20140317/89625c43/attachment.html>


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list