Re: [gobo-eiffel-develop] Gobo-Eiffel extensions

[Eric B. <er...@go...>]

Howard Thomson wrote:
> The advantage of having the option to retain the existing 'C' routines for 
> such simple operations is the ability to report assertion failures and to 
> provide precise details about the feature where an assertion fails, but for 
> production code having a (frozen) routine generated to execute a single 
> instruction is less than ideal.

Instead of having special treatment for those features in
basic types, I wanted to have them handled by a more general
"inlining" mechanism that would work for other user-written
classes containing small and easily inlinable routines as well.
But I didn't have time implement such mechanism yet.

> Is there yet an agreed basis for the semantics of 'once' functions in a 
> multi-threaded environment ? Where and how does one specifiy the variety of 
> once semantics that applies to a given feature ?

This is specified in the ECMA Eiffel standard document.
Did you download it already?

-- 
Eric Bezault
mailto:er...@go...
http://www.gobosoft.com