On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> wrote: > On 14 January 2011 13:26, Achilleas Margaritis wrote: >> My proposal does not change the language in any way, it only is a >> copy-and-paste job. > > That's not true, your example with an inline member function > demonstrates that the compiler must be changed to support your > proposal, so that functions defined inline are given a non-inline > definition that can be linked to by other translation units. > > If it was a copy'n'paste job, it could be done by an external tool, > which you've disputed.
My proposal doesn't change anything of the language from the programmer's perspective. The #autoinclude pragma can select to inline only those member functions that are good candidates for inlining. I.e. it can inline trivial code. I believe the GCC code already contains such criteria, like any other good compiler. > > Anyway, you don't seem to be convincing anyone of your proposal, but > if you want to see it in gcc you are free to download and modify the > source, or pay someone else to do it for you. There is a lot of resistance to this idea, I admit; but I haven't seen any concrete argument about why my proposal is not good. It seems the resistance comes in two flavors: 1) It is not interesting work for me, so you do it or pay someone else to do it (you seem to be into that camp). 2) I like headers because they are specifications (they aren't, but what can I do if one believe so? nothing). Hey, at least I tried :-).
