From -1176647913317128525 X-Google-Thread: f78e5,174aa7b34b06a51 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!proxad.net!213.200.89.82.MISMATCH!tiscali!newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newshub2.home.nl!newshub1.home.nl!home.nl!skynet.be!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!stump.algebra.com!devnull From: ark@acm.org ("Andrew Koenig") Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Is this really unspecified behavior? Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 04:06:50 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Lines: 27 Sender: mail2news@demon.net Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++) Message-ID: References: <1132759176.368850.264850@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1132933832.802917.153350@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1133551647.532929.325730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1133583412.951239.208510@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1133910546.716987.80030@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <0l5ep1ppfhdj5p1pcu7e4na4ub0vjajlq3@4ax.com> <"200512131507.jBDF72uC0 <200512161412.jBGECcuC061966@horus.isnic.is> NNTP-Posting-Host: news.news.demon.net X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1135051615 1839 158.152.254.254 (20 Dec 2005 04:06:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 04:06:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670 X-Priority: 3 X-Greylisting: NO DELAY (Relay+Sender autoqualified); processed by UCSD_GL-v2.1 on mailbox8.ucsd.edu; Mon, 19 December 2005 07:30:56 -0800 (PST) X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cs.mu.OZ.AU X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Received: (from fjh@localhost) by mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.9/Submit) id jBK46oAI017097; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:06:50 +1100 (EST) X-Path: comp-std-cpp-robomod!not-for-mail X-NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:30:54 GMT X-Delivered-To: std-c++@ucar.edu X-Spamscanner: mailbox8.ucsd.edu (v1.6 Aug 4 2005 15:27:38, 1.2/5.0 3.0.4) X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2670 X-Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.8 59237 jBJFUtkC073508 mailbox8.ucsd.edu) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.std.c++:2847 "Hyman Rosen" wrote in message news:200512161412.jBGECcuC061966@horus.isnic.is... > What I would like is for > void foo(auto_ptr, auto_ptr); > foo(new T, new T); > also not to be unsafe at any moment. That would certainly be nice. However, defining order of evaluation is neither necessary nor sufficient to guarantee that behavior. What it seems to me would be necessary is a guarantee that each argument be evaluated completely, and the corresponding parameter constructed, before moving on to the next argument. The arguments (and corresponding parameters) could, it seems to me, be evaluated in any order. The reason that defining order of evaluation is not sufficient is that it could be defined to require both arguments to be evaluated *before* binding either parameter to its argument, in which case memory exhaustion would assuredly result in a leak. --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]