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

["Vasiliy Molostov" <molostoff@gmail.com>]

Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> писал(а) в своём письме Mon,  
06 Aug 2012 21:58:25 +0400:

> 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:
>>>

>> 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.

They will affect already compiled modules. As you might know Ada aimed to  
minimize recompilations.
It is the common thing and one of major reasons why
ada has so much of the stuff with these visibilities and packages.

Why you have decided that calling convention is an optinization?

> Optimization switches are not usually
> part of subprogram's public specifications either.

Why (convention) is not a part? What is usually?
Yesterday I wrote some code and it has specs along with inline, just after  
subprogram spec.
Today you said that it is not usual. Not usual for whom?

> So why
> should inline need to be in the public view of a subprogram's spec?

Because it is a part of the specification. both of them convention and  
inline are
not optimisation, but code representation.

My choice is to see this as a part of specification. Much convenient.


> When you c&p a subprogram's spec, when is that?

When I use UML generator and wish to output subprogram specification and  
its properties
(e.g. inlining or convention) be printed in one pass (line, stanza,  
sentence).

> Why should
> aspects like Inline or Convention be part of the copy,
> which is not to be the original for a reason?

What is an original? Its unclear.

The way that usual works fine is to add brick or remove it. Since the  
brick is atomic element.

You are asking about how to get two bricks instead of one - a common brick  
and a small which is a supplement to the first one, being placed somewhere  
else in a private part.
And operations you offer are - add one, and then add its extent, searching  
appropriate place. And otherwise - remove common, and then searching its  
extent somewhere else.

What is the profit? It costs to much but I do not see any profit.

A good way is to use Inline as a configuration pragma, which will be  
processed along with other stuff like elimination of unused code. And of  
sourse, only if it is possible to inline, since library developer can  
enable/disable this, as Randy said - its a permission to the compiler to  
inline a subprogram.