Re: [boost] [gil] GIL_FORCEINLINE replaced with BOOST_FORCEINLINE?

Subject: Re: [boost] [gil] GIL_FORCEINLINE replaced with BOOST_FORCEINLINE?
From: Christian Henning (chhenning_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-03-12 16:58:08

>
> I was actually hoping to receive answer if it is a good idea at all.
> Perhaps my understanding of purpose of BOOST_FORCEINLINE is biased.
>

I don't see much difference in both versions. I'll adapt
BOOST_FORCEINLINE so I don't have to worry about gil's version. ;-)

Christian