Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!ames!ucla-cs!sdcrdcf!ism780c!marty From: marty@ism780c.UUCP (Marty Smith) Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2 Subject: Re: Syntax to include procedures inline in procedure-based languages Message-ID: <4860@ism780c.UUCP> Date: Thu, 11-Dec-86 16:58:27 EST Article-I.D.: ism780c.4860 Posted: Thu Dec 11 16:58:27 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 14-Dec-86 04:38:00 EST References: <11458@cca.UUCP> <4814@ism780c.UUCP> <1654@k.cc.purdue.edu> Reply-To: marty@ism780c.UUCP (Marty Smith) Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Santa Monica, CA Lines: 20 In article <1654@k.cc.purdue.edu> ahe@k.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Bill Wolfe) writes: >In article <4814@ism780c.UUCP> marty@ism780c.UUCP (Marty Smith) writes: >>In article <11458@cca.UUCP> bills@cca.UUCP (Bill Stackhouse) writes: >>> >>>Something I would like to see in all procedure based languages >>>is some syntax in the procedure def. that indicates that the >>>procedure is to be included inline at all places it is called. >>>That would allow the abstraction to still occur but would do >>>away with the overhead of calling and returning just for a few >>>lines of code. >> >>Good idea. >> Marty Smith > > *Bad* idea!! It is up to the *compiler* to judge whether or not to do this... > How does the compiler know what I want unless there is a way I can tell the compiler what I want? Some people take this artificial intelligence thing a little too far? Marty Smith