From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8f8cea8602e61aba
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Dean F. Sutherland" <dfsuther@ux4.sp.cs.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: The Red Language
Date: 1997/09/05
Message-ID: <34102DF5.36D589F1@ux4.sp.cs.cmu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 269999097
References: <340ED5D8.2DEF6D3@ux4.sp.cs.cmu.edu>
 <199709051335.PAA25952@basement.replay.com>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-09-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


> How does this differ from a function with a pragma Inline, and a
> compiler that does inlining?
> 

The first significant difference that I recall is that Gnal required
that the inlining must occur, even across compilation units.  As you
know, Ada's pragma Inline is advisory; compilers may ignore it if they
so choose.

The second difference is the name binding.  Arguments were evaluated on
each reference in the routine, rather than just once at the call site. 
Note that name binding was a choice you could make, it was not required.
(Looking at my old Gnal manual, I find:

nam	This primary binding mode is permitted only for formals of
	inline functions and abbreviations.  Each reference to the 	formal
results in a reevaluation of the actual object
	expression.

Extracted from section 6.3, binding rules)
Other choices for binding were val, ref, any, and repval. 

Dean