On 7 Dec, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > >> If we make it "static inline", would not we gain the same efficiency >> and preserve the comments and all that? In general, the methodoly >> seems to have a function for each non-terminal -- following a long >> tradition of recursive descent parser -- and maintaining that >> principle is helpful for code clarity.
Ok. I thought less indirection would make the code more readable, but you've got a point here. > There's no need to make it inline. The optimizers are now smart enough to > inline a static function into its only caller. That's what I thought. I'll leave the code as is, then. Regards, Volker
