Issue: DEFSTRUCT-ACCESS-FUNCTIONS-INLINE (Version 2)

[masinter.pa@Xerox.COM]

I couldn't resist changing the name of the issue lest we have another
future issue also dealing with DEFSTRUCT-ACCESS-FUNCTIONS.


!
Issue:        DEFSTRUCT-ACCESS-FUNCTIONS-INLINE
References:   DEFSTRUCT (p. 308)
Category:     CHANGE
Edit history: 5-Oct-88, Version 1 by Chapman
               6-Jan-89, Version 2 by Masinter

Problem Description:

 It is left up to the implementation whether or not the DEFSTRUCT access
 function is declared inline. Thus, some programmers write:

 (PROCLAIM '(INLINE FOO-A FOO-B FOO-C))
 (DEFSTRUCT FOO A B C)

 in portable code in case the code is run in an implementation where
 the INLINE proclaimation is meaningful but not the default for
 DEFSTRUCT accessors.

Proposal (DEFSTRUCT-ACCESS-FUNCTIONS-INLINE:YES)

 Make it mandatory that implementations declare access functions inline.
 Of course the declaration may or may not mean anything within the 
 particular implementation.

Rationale:

 This requirement resolves user ambiguity.

Current Practice:

  We've not surveyed many implementations, but apparently they
 differ as to whether INLINE for defstruct accessors is the default.

Cost to implementors:

 Minimal.

Cost to users:

 Minimal.

Benefits:

 This clarification will give users insurance that the inline declaration
 has been made for the access function.

Aesthetics:

 Specified is simpler than not-specified.

Performance Impact:
 
  Small. Some programs might have different size/space characteristics.

Discussion:

 We know of no implementation where such automatic inlining would
 be inappropriate, even in cases where INLINE is recognized. Certainly
 implementations are free to ignore INLINE proclaimations even
 selectively, i.e., ignore INLINE proclaimations only for DEFSTRUCT
 accessors.    The major impact of this proposal is just to make it clear
 that a separate (PROCLAIM '(INLINE ...)) is not necessary.