From 6352440038707337986 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!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.speakeasy.net!news.speakeasy.net.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 23:30:01 -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: Hyman Rosen 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: <1132629737.664847.151630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1132722639.345095.296070@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <200511231401.jANE1BuC092897@horus.isnic.is> <37hco1hvfg2s43q2dv3003her7im99airg@4ax.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <1twif.776$iZ3.758@trndny03> X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net 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: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 23:29:24 CST Lines: 39 NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.182.171.162 X-Trace: sv3-UY33fBz7AcPpBMRK3RsDmdf6xMmIWAhxouR/I4B7+r6eZhdS8quU4/lXUnYwHxFyW6MgmaNuxAOh+30!jfo8Gfo0IxzsdWf3/1/ta7Jq3UNDa9cM9XQbUEbONIhThlKbBB4qHqt6dWdYwRf5f1Vbf8mjGYmE!vu5sMH4= 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++:2616 David Abrahams wrote: > Between this argument and the one about performance, there seem at > least to be plausible reasons for the status quo. Labelling it > "asinine" not to define an order of evaluation seems inappropriate. This is where we start quoting Emerson. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." > As a practical matter, I'm unlikely to buy into an argument about > anything but the most obvious mistakes if it comes with language like > that because of what it says about the speaker's willingness to give > counterarguments their due. Believe me, I'm giving those counterarguments *more* than they're due. We've got made-up customers who are so tied to a vendor that they demand compatibility for undocumented and unspecified features but who are still able to change vendors if they don't get it. We've got made-up optimizers who are so brilliant that they mustn't be constrained for fear of slowing the code, but who are at the same time so stupid that they can't figure out the ordinary cases where order doesn't matter. We've got a (probably) made-up Standard Committee who is so responsive to compiler vendors that they won't agree to specify formerly unspecifed behavior, but did standardize two-phase name lookup in templates, which broke every implementation in existence, half of whom still haven't caught up years later. --- [ 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 ]