From 4704656567930605339 X-Google-Thread: f78e5,174aa7b34b06a51 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.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: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 18:20:08 -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: Edward Diener No Spam User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Is this really unspecified behavior? 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> <1135175196.060746.148580@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net X-Greylisting: NO DELAY (Relay+Sender autoqualified); processed by UCSD_GL-v2.1 on mailbox8.ucsd.edu; Sat, 24 December 2005 16:06:16 -0800 (PST) X-Spamscanner: mailbox8.ucsd.edu (v1.6 Aug 4 2005 15:27:38, -2.8/5.0 3.0.4) X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.8 82318 jBP06FPl087928 mailbox8.ucsd.edu) 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: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 18:19:55 CST Lines: 87 NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.182.171.162 X-Trace: sv3-cm7k2SlRA4cX8mWqyo5JCIwCAoAMIEXb24cLUEGtnE2eXPGLH2mZ4JbLQKELXDL/YQAHPqLo0/GZCE7!gZ4elFzbaq2/k6A3eHuYQdZZTqfljCDqt85M4YUfTh9xXA258DG/j9mNP1nJN8H+6ElCQ41S+Ypk!OxA5VQ6LutP8I0XQpzMzJKA+mi0iozn4JpyMooQf 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++:2912 Chris Hills wrote: > In article , Edward > Diener No Spam writes > >>Christopher Dearlove wrote: >> >>>Hyman Rosen wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Fortunately, specifying order of evaluation >>>>does not involve breaking anything. >>> >>> >>>Except existing compilers. >> >>It would not break existing compilers, it would change them. > > > Which is the same thing? It is the wording you used, as if making a change to the way C++ evaluates currently unspecified behavior, somehow is going to cause the compilers to no longer work at all. > > >>I view the >>programmer as more important than the compiler implementors when >>designing a programming language. > > > Good for you. Many have taken this view and their dead languages can be > found littering the pages of history. They usually died because they > could not convince enough people to write decent tools for the language. Lots of dead computer languages become that way because they are ossified into never changing, as programming models and programmer techniques get better. Other computer languages, which change fairly rapidly, garner a great deal of support for programmers and language implementors, both of whom welcome the better use of the language. > > >>>And hence it would be ten years or more >> >>I am glad you have measured this so accurately. > > > Ten years or more is somewhere between 10 and infinity. In other words > not less than 10 years. Your claim, that it would take 10 years for a compiler to change so that it could evaluate expressions in a specified order which are currently unspecified, is preposterous. >>Then you might as well argue that any change to any language will change >>existing compilers and therefore should never be made. > > > This could be argued. It is a case of balancing. Is the new feature that > important that users demand it and compiler companies will spend time > and effort on it? I agree with you here but I would place user's demands over compiler companies' willingness. It is after all the programmer who has to use the language, and like what the language gives them as far as correpsonding to their model of a good language for a particular domain, which drives the creation and sale of compiler implementations. > > This is a commercial problem as much as an engineering one. Really. So if we do it for GCC, which is free, then it no longer becomes a commercial problem ? Granted that we do not want C++, or any language, so arcane and complex in its rules that no company will want to put out a conforming compiler for it, still companies will put out conforming versions of a computer language if they think it is beneficial for their customers and their sales. A well-reasoned and welcome change in the direction of beneficiality should not cause companies to refuse to support the change. --- [ 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 ]