From 6232152322138715158 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!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.vmunix.org!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: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:44:07 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Lines: 29 Sender: mail2news@demon.net Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++) Message-ID: References: <1132629737.664847.151630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1132662585.882464.24110@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1132759176.368850.264850@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: news.news.demon.net X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1132865061 22277 158.152.254.254 (24 Nov 2005 20:44:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:44:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670 X-Priority: 3 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original 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 jAOKi7aw019405; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:44:07 +1100 (EST) X-Path: comp-std-cpp-robomod!not-for-mail X-NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:04:55 GMT 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-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2670 X-Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.std.c++:2593 wrote in message news:1132759176.368850.264850@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > As long as the specified order of evaluation under new rules was the > same as one of the permitted orders of evaluation under the current > rules, code which depends upon a different order of evaluation is (even > under the current rules) non-portable. There's only a limited degree to > which I care about what goes wrong with such code. Evidently you're not a compiler vendor :-) On several occasions I have heard representatives of compiler vendors telling the standards committee that if the standard mandated behavior that forced them to change their implementations in particular ways, they would ship a nonconforming implementation rather than alienate their customers. The unfortunate fact is that when people's programs change behavior from one version of a compiler to another, they complain--and typically they don't care whether the change was because their program relied on behavior that isn't guaranteed. I'm not saying that things should be this way--in fact, I wish they weren't. But you can't ignore reality by wishing it away. --- [ 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 ]