From 1902047363344947837
X-Google-Thread: f78e5,174aa7b34b06a51
X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed.cw.net!news-FFM2.ecrc.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 18:56:43 GMT
Lines: 16
Sender: mail2news@demon.net
Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++)
Message-ID: <200511251453.jAPErPuC052835@horus.isnic.is>
References: <1132629737.664847.151630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
 <1132662585.882464.24110@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
 <E1EeZw5-0004wI-00@chx400.switch.ch>
 <XBQgf.150724$zb5.113482@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <1132809799.629407.12230@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.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 1132945012 20335 158.152.254.254 (25 Nov 2005 18:56:52 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:56:52 +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 jAPIuhAU012218;
	Sat, 26 Nov 2005 05:56:43 +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++:2600

Razzer wrote:
> However, I think the order of evaluation of arguments causes
 > such a minor set of problems in C++ that one could leave it
 > how it is

No, absolutely not. Leaving argument evaluation underspecified
is what caused the infamous 'f(auto_ptr, auto_ptr)' problem.
If we can define the order of initialization of class members
we can do the same for arguments. No half measures!

---
[ 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                       ]



