Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!decwrl!mcnc!thorin!currituck!morse
From: morse@currituck.cs.unc.edu (Bryan Morse)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Yet more THINK C suggestions
Message-ID: <16968@thorin.cs.unc.edu>
Date: 21 Oct 90 15:28:22 GMT
References: <21107@well.sf.ca.us> <16707@thorin.cs.unc.edu> <15577@reed.UUCP> <1990Oct18.191531.29325@mtcchi.uucp>
Sender: news@thorin.cs.unc.edu
Reply-To: morse@currituck.cs.unc.edu (Bryan Morse)
Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Lines: 13

In article <1990Oct18.191531.29325@mtcchi.uucp> fjo@mtcchi.uucp (2667-Frank Owen(ZG90210)0000) writes:
>THINK C already allows you to define this is a macro, that would yield
>exactly the same code as the inline would.

True, but sometimes macros just don't cut it.  Inline functions give you
prototypes, breakpoints, etc. that you just can't do with a macro.  Besides,
we *all* know the headaches of macros, don't we?

One more vote for inline functions...


Bryan Morse
morse@cs.unc.edu