James Dennett <jdennett@acm.org> dared to utter in
news:3B18E5D0.E340EA21@acm.org:

> Martijn Lievaart wrote:
>>
>> James Dennett <jdennett@acm.org> dared to utter in
>> news:3B139BFD.3BC89EF4@acm.org:
>>

[ Discussion about non-inline templated code in headers and whether that
conforms to the standard ]

>> > "inline" does not force the compiler to inline things, but
>> > it does force it to collapse identical definitions.
>>
>> From a standards and portability view, you are absolutely right.
>
> Having reviewed the Standard, I'm not sure that I am.  The
> exemption to the ODR made for inline functions also appears
> to apply to methods of class templates.  In any case, I know

Not having the standard here, I'm now really getting curious. If this is so
why the "export" keyword? Could you give that quote from the standard?

> that I've actually written a lot of code without the "inline"
> keyword in class template member definition and never run
> into any problems because of it.
>

Ah, as I said, try Sun CC.

I took the liberty of crossposting to comp.std.c++, the experts over there
can probably shed more light on this.

TIA,
M4

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]