> Are you sure that there is not a flag to gcc such that you can compile
> with -O, but without inlining?
-fno-inline would sound appropriate, wouldn't it?
> [...]
> The code is often easier to understand when the definition is close to the
> declaration for these bits of code that are really simple.
I'd actually prefer to put one-liners directly in the class definition in
my own coding as a matter of convienience and better readability, too. Of
course, the latter is arguable, but if I see
size_type size() const
{ return data_.size(); }
I immediately know what's going on and that it is a comparatively "cheap"
operation. And it's 30 key presses.
Current LyX:
size_type size() const;
[... 50 lines later ...]
MyFooBarClass::size_type MyFooBarClass::size() const
{
return data_.size()
}
This does not only quadruple the amount of typing (which is a pain for the
wrists, I am _very_ aware of that) and occupies twice as much space on
screen, it is also takes more key presses for moving around.
And it gets even worse with templates...
No, I am not advocating "my style", I am pretty happy with current LyX as
long as it stays uniform. I am just trying to support Asgers words
" The code is often easier to understand when the definition is close to the
declaration for these bits of code that are really simple. "
****, in "real code" we prefer 'int i = 5;' over 'int i; [...] i = 5;' too,
don't we?
Andre'
--
André Pönitz ........................................ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
