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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9983e856ed268154
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.66.85.231 with SMTP id k7mr227449paz.38.1344554809463;
        Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 g9ni24782196pbo.0!nntp.google.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Should Inline be private in the private part of a package spec?
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 15:29:59 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <613764f5-0216-4271-9278-70290198d71d@googlegroups.com>
References: <501bd285$0$6564$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <e416cb92-6ec8-4514-8fa9-c35d6432b117@googlegroups.com>
 <wcc4noj4zof.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <jvnchp$r5c$1@munin.nbi.dk> <wccr4rkqed5.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <k01d04$l93$1@munin.nbi.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.20.190.126
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1344554809 9856 127.0.0.1 (9 Aug 2012 23:26:49
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 23:26:49 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <k01d04$l93$1@munin.nbi.dk>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=69.20.190.126;
 posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-Received-Bytes: 1932
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Date: 2012-08-09T15:29:59-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thursday, August 9, 2012 4:18:40 PM UTC-6, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "Robert A Duff" <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message 
> 
> If 10.1.4(7/3) didn't exist, then Inline would not need to be given in 
> visible spec. But as I noted elsewhere, I don't think Inline should be given 
> anywhere -- compilers can figure out when to Inline better than any human 
> can. Hints about the amount of space expansion allowed for the entire 
> program and the relative importance of particular subprograms would be much 
> more valuable.

Well, isn't that the reason that Pragma Inline allows the compiler to inline the subprogram, rather than being a compiler switch _requiring_ the subprogram to be inlined?