From -1656455597210133988 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: hyrosen@mail.com (Hyman Rosen) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Is this really unspecified behavior? Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:56:07 GMT Lines: 22 Sender: mail2news@demon.net Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++) Message-ID: <200511251438.jAPEcLuC052298@horus.isnic.is> References: <1132629737.664847.151630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1132722639.345095.296070@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <200511231401.jANE1BuC092897@horus.isnic.is> <37hco1hvfg2s43q2dv3003her7im99airg@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: news.news.demon.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1132944975 9145 158.152.254.254 (25 Nov 2005 18:56:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:56:15 +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 jAPIu7Ea011900; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 05:56:07 +1100 (EST) X-Path: comp-std-cpp-robomod!not-for-mail 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++:2598 Herb Sutter wrote: > The real reason is performance: When you talk about nailing down > the order of evaluation, the first howls of protest usually come > from the people who write code optimizers Except that this is a bogus reason. We want to specify the exact meaning of language constructs, not their implementation. This affects optimizers only in the rare cases of expressions which are actually ambiguous; obviously most are not, and their evaluation can be ordered in any way the compiler sees fit by the as-if rules. It seems to me that such complaints amount to "I'm so smart that it would be bad to constrain me, but I'm so stupid that I don't know that I'm not constrained." I don't think that language semantics should be driven by that kind of consideration. --- [ 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 ]