DIP56 - inlining

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 2/3/15 6:44 PM, Mike wrote:
> On Wednesday, 4 February 2015 at 00:39:05 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>>
>>> pragma(inline, true);  // enable -inline compiler flag
>>> pragma(inline, false); // disable -inline compiler flag
>>> pragma(inline);        // use whatever is passed in on the command line
>>>
>>> ...as that is really the intent of DIP56 as confirmed by Walter.
>>
>> No this is definitely not what I wanted.
>
> This is not what I want either.  I find @always_inline and @never_inline
> attributes with compile-time enforcement *far* more useful.
>
> But DIP56 was not originally intended to address that need, and it's a
> shame it was worded as if it was.  pragma(inline, true) is not "always
> inline" and pragma(inline, false) is not "never inline".
>
> Implementing DIP56 as it was originally intended (or more intuitively as
> a way to add compiler flags to part of a file) would not prevent the
> addition of future features to enable inlining enforcement.
>
> But now we're compromising to mediocrity where noone really wins.

Nobody really loses, either. (I'll note that gcc has several mechanisms 
for enabling/disabling inlining, all of which issue a warning at the most.)

The question is, can you get work done with the currently proposed 
semantics? If so, let's commit to this and move on.


Andrei