[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Coding standards: don't use ``inline`` when defining a function in a class definition

[Dmitri Gribenko]

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:08 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > This came up on IRC in context of r173842, and it was suggested to
>> > codify this unspoken rule.
>> >
>> > Current practice is not to use 'inline' in:
>> >
>> >   class Foo {
>> >   public:
>> >     inline void bar() {
>> >       // ...
>> >     }
>> >   };
>>
>> Ping.
>>
>> This patch is not changing anything, it just documents the rule we
>> already follow.
>
>
> Sure. LGTM.
>
> Note that I don't have any real opinion about this other than that it's one
> less needless keyword. =]

Thank you, committed r174317.

Dmitri

-- 
main(i,j){for(i=2;;i++){for(j=2;j<i;j++){if(!(i%j)){j=0;break;}}if
(j){printf("%d\n",i);}}} /*Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com>*/