Mathias Gaunard wrote:
Simonson, Lucanus wrote:
If, by some strange coincidence, you happen to be implementing a non-template class and leave out the inline keyword when defining a static member function in the header file as part of the class definition, or any other kind of function, for that matter, you end up with a multiple function definition link-time error when the header is included in multiple execution units. Specifying the inline keyword forces the compiler to make the function signature a weak symbol and eliminates the link time error.
Defining member functions directly within the class definition already has that effect. Such functions are implicitly inline according to the C++ standard.
The "inline" keyword is useless there as far as the C++ standard is concerned. Now, maybe some compilers consider specifying it explicitly an additional hint with regards to inlining, and that's the real question of that thread.
Bingo! That's the question, indeed. However, I haven't found definitive answer. Anyway, I suppose it should easier for the authors to answer why they used extra inline keyword in some of Boost libraries. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org