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: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: Darren New Subject: Re: Optimizing recursion (was Re: Why C++ is successful) Date: 1998/08/25 Message-ID: <35E32841.49A5343D@fv.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 384686285 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <6qfhri$gs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35cb8058.645630787@news.ne.mediaone.net> <902934874.2099.0.nnrp-10.c246a717@news.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: First Virtual Holdings Inc Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-08-25T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: > To the greatest extent possible, the goal in Ada is to make the > code understandable to the reader. Pragma Inline is one tool for > creating an abstraction without having to pay for it at run-time. Why wouldn't the compiler just generate the best code that is sematically equivalent to the Ada source? Why does the author of the code have to tell the compiler that the *author* thinks it's more efficient to expand the routine inline than to call it as a function? -- Darren New / Senior Software Architect / First Virtual Holdings Inc http://www.fv.com or info@fv.com -=|=- PGP Key: ftp://ftp.fv.com/pub/fv Fingerprint: 61 7D AF 9E 00 CC C2 ED / D8 4C D7 AA E4 C2 A0 73