http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10848
--- Comment #8 from Manu <[email protected]> 2013-08-20 17:32:36 PDT --- (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > That's why I'd suggest the keyword should be '*force*inline'; this suggests > > the > > programmer deliberately made the request, and knows exactly what they're > > doing. > > Explicit "forceinline" code annotation is completely irrelevant topic. Yes, as I said, I mentioned it because I felt it could share some code here. If there was a 'forceinline' concept known by the compiler, you could implicitly mark lambda's in your situation with this same new attribute, and it would reliably do what you want, in addition to offering the keyword to control it explicitly... rather than just making some sort of hack in the compiler to do it for lambda's in particular situations. It was just a thought. If I'm wrong, then no problem. It just seemed like it could be tidier. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
