Re: "static inline" in a header file is stupid, right?

On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 at 3:38:08 PM UTC-5, Benoit Jacob wrote: > Hello, > > Short version: "inline" alone is enough to take care of multiple > function definitions. Next time you're about to write "static inline" > in a header file, seriously consider doing "inline" instead. > > Long version:

Re: "static inline" in a header file is stupid, right?

On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 12:54:59 PM UTC-5, Botond Ballo wrote: > > > > Hi! I come from the future, it is not in C++17. > > > > Can you elaborate on what "it" is? > > Thanks, > Botond Stupid: It is not stupid, it is a feature. ___ dev-platform mail

Re: "static inline" in a header file is stupid, right?

On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 8:21:01 PM UTC-5, Botond Ballo wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 9:00 PM wrote: > > > Stupid: It is not stupid, it is a feature. > > > > Ah, you mean `static inline` has uses in C++17 that it didn't have in older > versions? > > I would appreciate an example (or a lin