From 8474383264454026630 X-Google-Thread: f78e5,174aa7b34b06a51 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.speakeasy.net!news.speakeasy.net.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:00:15 -0600 Return-Path: X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) Delivered-To: std-c++@ucar.edu From: "Momchil Velikov" Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Is this really unspecified behavior? Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <1135179561.238816.222930@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> 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> <200512201408.jBKE8g64093941@mailbox7.ucsd.edu> <1135116348.175747.219310@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com User-Agent: G2/0.2 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.10) Gecko/20050906 Firefox/1.0.6 (Debian package 1.0.6-4),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=84.22.10.178; posting-account=Fh11Bw0AAAB0-wFbEALShd0KZmegcXjp X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ucar.edu X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cs.mu.OZ.AU Approved: Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++ X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cs.mu.OZ.AU Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 23:53:40 CST Lines: 27 NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.182.171.162 X-Trace: sv3-6wg91gO4PHERzfnKpidzfrNiWVR68wcTvl3fWFx7XrBavxEPMno1AJ1Ka80A2fh2BhMhoFQv9zDoPqI!3uqTXrmJiawhwVRPFJSqix5dTY5tsk2GuKuT3fjh+PEDSx0ysiMcXuhYRHSC8SIqkvB1DqU75lJc!HQkQz7Le9PAmjXuZmGEtPg0noCfCxUJoE5KMtA5/tt4= X-Complaints-To: abuse@speakeasy.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@speakeasy.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.std.c++:2891 Hyman Rosen wrote: > Momchil Velikov wrote: > > This construct is already taken. > > It is not. There are unspecified semantics for the > superficially similar construct that appears in C++. Yes, it is taken, the "expression" construct exists in C++ and there's nothing in it, that would not remain unspecified even if the order of evaluation was fixed. > > Why break it leaving no alternative? > > Agreed. Fortunately, specifying order of evaluation > does not involve breaking anything. Yes, it breaks the language by removing means to specify independence of the order of evaluation. ~velco --- [ 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 ]