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: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: simon.willcocks@octel.com (Simon Willcocks) Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1997/01/09 Message-ID: <5b2tj5$7i4@news.eng.octel.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 208721537 references: <5acjtn$5uj@news3.digex.net> <32D11FD3.41C6@wi.leidenuniv.nl> organization: Octel C/SSD newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1997-01-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) says: > >Bart said > >"You shouldn't bother programmers with inlining. Inlining can be done >automatically by the compiler." > >I don't see this is possible across modules without violating the integrity >of separation of specs and implementations. > I take it you're coming from an Ada perspective, where each package can be separately compiled without any information from other packages' implementations? I think that even in this case inlining could be done by a suitable linker, provided the compiler could mark parts of object code as suitable for inlining. The linker could insert the relevant code in place of the call statement, rather than just setting the location to be called. Simon Willcocks