From -80005670438799994 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!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!stump.algebra.com!devnull From: hyrosen@mail.com (Hyman Rosen) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Is this really unspecified behavior? Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 01:20:11 GMT Lines: 16 Sender: mail2news@demon.net Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++) Message-ID: <6d2pf.111$ul2.59@trndny05> 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> <200512161412.jBGECcuC061966@horus.isnic.is> NNTP-Posting-Host: news.news.demon.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1134868845 15540 158.152.254.254 (18 Dec 2005 01:20:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 01:20:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) X-User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cs.mu.OZ.AU X-Received: (from fjh@localhost) by mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.9/Submit) id jBI1KB0s023942; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:20:11 +1100 (EST) X-Path: comp-std-cpp-robomod!not-for-mail X-NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:39:30 EST X-Delivered-To: std-c++@ucar.edu X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.std.c++:2810 Howard Hinnant wrote: > And to get to that point, mandating left-to-right, or right-to-left is > overkill. We only need to mandate that there is a sequence point > between the argument evaluations. No. It's sequence points that led to this nonsense in the first place. Order of evaluation *is* the problem. The fact that it leads to code which is unsafe for resource handling is only one manifestation of the confusion and errors it causes. --- [ 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 ]