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