Re: Should Inline be private in the private part of a package spec?

[Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

On 06.08.12 17:50, Vasiliy Molostov wrote:
> Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.theworld.com> писал(а) в своём письме Mon, 06
> Aug 2012 18:33:42 +0400:
> 
>> "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:
>>
> 
>> If you like, show us an example of one of these "fails to link"
>> cases.  Or don't bother -- it's really not that important.
> 
> 
> Perhaps Randy mentioned linking (binding object files). In a case when you
> make subprogram inlined then to effective figure out it in resulting image you
> should *recompile*, rebuild and relink modules that have used this subprogram
> previously, into a new application image (entirely). This means in a nut that
> subprogram changed its specification cardinally from 'call' to 'jump'

The subprogram specification does not change, even when
the compiler chooses to produce different output.

The competing ways of saying "inline" are both in a package spec.
One is private, the other needs to be listed among other aspects of
the public spec of a subprogram.


> So indeed 'inlining' belongs to subprogram specification in the same way as
> calling convention.

Inlining and convention are aspects typically related to translation,
aspects that would not normally affect the resulting
executable program except in the way that, say,
optimization switches do. Optimization switches are not usually
part of subprogram's public specifications either. So why
should inline need to be in the public view of a subprogram's spec?

When you c&p a subprogram's spec, when is that? Why should
aspects like Inline or Convention be part of the copy,
which is not to be the original for a reason?