On 15 March 2014 14:55, Manu <turkey...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 15 March 2014 14:33, Daniel Murphy <yebbliesnos...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> "Manu" <turkey...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:mailman.128.1394856947.23258.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... >> >> > Haven't we already agreed a pragma for force inline should be > >>> implemented. Or is >>> > that something I have dreamed? >>> >>> It's been discussed. I never agreed to it (I _really_ don't like it), >>> but I'll take it if it's the best >>> I'm gonna get. >>> >>> I don't like stateful attributes like that. I think it's error prone, >>> especially when it's silent. >>> 'private:' for instance will complain if you write a new function in an >>> area influenced by the >>> private state and try and call it from elsewhere; ie, you know you made >>> the mistake. >>> If you write a new function in an area influenced by the forceinline >>> state which wasn't intended >>> to be inlined, you won't know. I think that's dangerous. >>> >> >> Huh? The pragma could easily be restricted to apply to exactly one >> function declaration, if that's what's desired. >> > > Then why bother with a pragma? > It's just a special case for the sake of a special case... I don't see why > resist the language conventions. Where's the precedent for that? It just > sounds like it's asking to cause edge cases and trouble down the line. > Is it gonna get messy when it involves with templates? What about methods, > sub-functions? >
*bump* I actually care about this a whole lot more than final-by-default right now ;) I'd like to think there's a possible solution to these problems that everyone agrees with.