Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Dave, post: 2517232"] Hello all, Please consider this code: #ifndef FOO_INCLUDED #define FOO_INCLUDED // File: foo.h class foo { public: // Defined here in the header, implicitly inline void func_1() {} void func_2(); }; // Defined here in the header, not implicitly inline void foo::func_2() {} #endif If this file gets included by more than one .cpp file, a link error along the lines of "multiply defined synbol" will result because of foo::func_2(). Now, let's take foo::func_2() out, leaving only foo::func_1(). There is no longer an error. This shows that foo::func_1() does not induce this error; this is due to the fact that it is (implicitly) inline. There is presumably no foo::func_1() symbol generated since a call to it is never generated. In lieu of a call, its contents are simply plopped in place. Now, this raises a question. A compiler is not required to honor an inline request, even an implicit one. So, it would seem that defining a member function inside of your class declaration would be very risky. If the compiler chooses to not make the function inline, your going to get a "multiply defined symbol" error. Yet, I have never seen this happen, and I know that it is very common practice to define one or two line member functions inside of their class' definition. I see this done by experts in modern C++ literature all the time. So, what am I missing here? How is it that the way I have declared / defined foo::func_1() above is not putting me in jeopardy of a "multiply defined symbol" linker error? Thanks, Dave [/QUOTE]

Verification