----Original Message---- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Andy Sent: 31 May 2007 18:43 To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [guid] - review results? - inline missing
"Martin Bonner" <Martin.Bonner@pi-shurlok.com> wrote in news:5D8503D66B71984E8D7F6651BA74D0592E0071@yew.PS.LOCAL:
From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org on behalf of Peter Dimov Sent: Thu 31/05/2007 18:04 To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [guid] - review results? - inline missing
Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
You need to add an explicit 'inline' specifier to any function defined out of class but in a header, regardless if it's a templatized function or not.
I don't think that this is true. ________________________________
<end quote> Why don't you think this is true?
If you have the same function defined in two translation units (because it is dragged into both via #include), it's a violation of the One Definition Rule unless the definitions have inline.
< snip >
I don't know what is correct by the standard, or what is correct to do to ensure that all comilers will be able to compile it.
But, I included uuid.hpp (from uuid_v9.zip that I just uploaded to the vault) in two different complication units (and called some of the templated functions). The templated functions do not have the inline keyword and I don't get a complication error using visual studio .NET.
See my other post (executive summary, Peter is right and I was wrong), but not getting a compilaton error is not much evidence. The normal way that violations of the ODR manifest themselves is with a linker error, or unexpected behaviour at runtime because what the programmer thought was a single object has ended up in two places. -- Martin Bonner Project Leader PI SHURLOK LTD Telephone: +44 1223 441434 / 203894 (direct) Fax: +44 1223 203999 Email: martin.bonner@pi-shurlok.com www.pi-shurlok.com