Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!pilchuck!dataio!bright
From: bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Inlining -- what happened to the inline keyword
Keywords: ansi inline
Message-ID: <2121@dataio.Data-IO.COM>
Date: 11 Sep 89 17:54:55 GMT
References: <4783@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Reply-To: bright@dataio.Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright)
Organization: Data I/O Corporation; Redmond, WA
Lines: 18

In article <4783@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lupton@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Robert Lupton) writes:
<I thought that the keyword `inline' was being proposed for ANSI C, to declare
<that a function should be expanded inline. I've been wondering ever since 
<why it was killed. Ditto with comments to end of line // this is a comment
<Both have prior art (in C++), so that can't have been the reason. Can
<anyone (I hope not many more than one) enlighten me?

I don't know the specifics, but I do know that once you start tossing in
C++ features, at what point do you stop? Why not toss them all in, and
simply redefine C as C++?

C is a mature language, and standardizing it at this time is appropriate.
C++ is still rapidly evolving (though I hope that C++ 2.0 will be a stable
and mature version for some time).

C is now mature, standard, and therefore obsolete. C++ is where the future
of C is, and it's where the action is. I don't say this because I sell
a C++ compiler, I sell a C++ compiler because I believe this to be true!