inlining or not inlining...

[so]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 00:58:48 +0200, Walter Bright  
<newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:

> so wrote:
>> If you are against this reasoning, i don't have any idea why D has  
>> inline assembly, which again targets a very small audience.
>
> The inline assembler is soooo much easier to deal with than the  
> miserable, fugly assemblers found on the various systems.
>
> The Linux as assembler is designed to crush all the joy out of writing  
> in asm. The Microsoft assemblers change behavior constantly, breaking  
> everything.
>
> The inline assembler can't do everything a standalone assembler can, but  
> what it does it does well enough, and is a pleasure (to me) to use.

That was not my question. I am not against inline asm, quite contrary it  
is one of the best things in D.
I just tried to point out that both should be provided because of similar  
reasons.