Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!dcl-cs!aber-cs!pcg
From: pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Request for C++ coding "guidelines"
Summary: inline 100 line functions? normally, no reason to bother...
Message-ID: <1644@aber-cs.UUCP>
Date: 18 Feb 90 19:12:33 GMT
Reply-To: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi)
Organization: Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth
	(Disclaimer: my statements are purely personal)
Lines: 30

In article <FOX.90Feb16162320@devo.allegra.att.com> fox@allegra.att.com (David Fox) writes:
    
    Sometimes I'll make a piece of code into a subroutine that is only
    called once (or maybe twice), in order to elucidate the structure of
    the program.  In this case it is appropriate to make even a hundred
    line function inline.

Well, one of the main reasons for inlines does not apply; for a large
function,  call return overhead is going to be insignificant. And doing
large inlines taxes the *compiler*. On the other hand, I admit to the same
practice (but only occasionally)... even if I think it is pretty pointless.

    Another reason I've heard for using inlines is to preserve locality of
    reference.

Or, even more strongly, allowing code simplification. But I could leave
to the programmer, actually.

    These decisions should be up to programmers, not to guideline writers.

Hey, if you *know* what you are doing, a guideline is not a rule! :-).

Another thought: I actually think that inline could usefully be split in two
keywords; 'inlinable' applied to functions, and 'inline' applied to their
calls. It is not always worth it to inline expand a function at every one of
its calls. But maybe this is splitting hairs too finely...
-- 
Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi           | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth        | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk