Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!mintaka!spdcc!iecc!compilers-sender From: quale@cs.wisc.edu (Douglas E. Quale) Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Is inlining evil? Keywords: optimize, design Message-ID: <1991May4.190905.10833@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> Date: 4 May 91 19:09:05 GMT References: <1991May1.035622.25021@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> <19 <9105031304.AA00625@slave.vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at> Sender: compilers-sender@iecc.cambridge.ma.us Reply-To: quale@cs.wisc.edu (Douglas E. Quale) Organization: University of Wisconsin -- Madison Lines: 16 Approved: compilers@iecc.cambridge.ma.us In article <9105031304.AA00625@slave.vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at> Michael K. Gschwind writes: >Inline functions are far superior to macros (C hackers, please don't flood >my mailbox ;-) in avoiding unwanted side effects, because they are >supposed to have identical semantics when compared to `normal' functions. This is certainly true, but it is largely due to the impotence of the C preprocessor. Languages such as Lisp that have more powerful macroprocessors do not have the multiple evaluation of parameters problem so common in C macros. Unfortunately Lisp macros have their problems too, but at least you can do something useful with them.... -- Doug Quale quale@saavik.cs.wisc.edu -- Send compilers articles to compilers@iecc.cambridge.ma.us or {ima | spdcc | world}!iecc!compilers. Meta-mail to compilers-request.