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

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

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' and a method of passing its parameters from callers is changed  
accordingly.

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

I suppose that language syntax should (shall, must, have to, used to be)  
support subprogram specification and its properties as one atomic unit, so  
ordinary developer (syntax enabled IDE or automated tool) can copy  
subprogram specification text without doubt "is anything else he/she  
forgot to dig in the source about this specification".

E.g. this means that the best way is to see subprogram specification as  
one language sentence.



-- 
Написано в почтовом клиенте браузера Opera: http://www.opera.com/mail/