Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!uflorida!gatech!bbn!bbn.com!lpringle
From: lpringle@bbn.com (Lewis G. Pringle)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: goodbye cpp ??? (macros vs. inline functions)
Message-ID: <33500@bbn.COM>
Date: 14 Dec 88 01:11:53 GMT
References: <6590072@hplsla.HP.COM> <1757@dataio.Data-IO.COM> <3637@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <1304@cod.NOSC.MIL> <3663@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <1309@cod.NOSC.MIL>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: lpringle@labs-n.bbn.com (Lewis G. Pringle)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 31



It is not quite true that Inlines preserve the semantics of function calls.
At least - in cfront 1.2.  Here is an example.

inline Catch()
{
	return (setjmp (failureHandlers[which++]));   // sb !setjmp???
}

Fred ()
{
	if (Catch()) {
		DoSomeStuffThatMayCauseFailure ();
	}
	else {
		CleanUp ();
	}
}

Here it is really rather important that the inline act as a macro.
I may be an unintended feature of the implementation that the above
code works.  It certainly violates the 'preserve the semantics' criterion
bandied about lately.  Yet I contest that it is useful to have inlines
work the way they do - especially if you are thinking of trashing cpp!

					Lewis.
"OS/2: half an operating system for half a computer."

In Real Life:		Lewis Gordon Pringle Jr.
Electronic Mail:	lpringle@labs-n.bbn.com
Phone:			(617) 873-4433