From -5254851853247781673 X-Google-Thread: f78e5,174aa7b34b06a51 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.alt.net!comp-std-cpp-robomod!not-for-mail From: Hyman Rosen Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Is this really unspecified behavior? Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:29:21 CST Organization: "Altopia Corp. - Usenet Access - www.altopia.com" Lines: 25 Approved: Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++ Message-ID: References: <1132629737.664847.151630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1132722639.345095.296070@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <200511231401.jANE1BuC092897@horus.isnic.is> <37hco1hvfg2s43q2dv3003her7im99airg@4ax.com> <1twif.776$iZ3.758@trndny03> <200511291438.jATEcauC061819@horus.isnic.is> <6rKdnZGpV7M-6hHeRVn-gA@giganews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 X-Trace: 1133379633 25411 204.253.248.208 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ucar.edu X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cs.mu.OZ.AU X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cs.mu.OZ.AU Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.std.c++:2638 P.J. Plauger wrote: > It has *everything* to do with respect. You're second guessing > the committee on inadequate information and you think that's > okay. No, I'm not. Has the committee ever received and rejected a proposal to fix order of evaluation? If it has, I'm not aware of it. The second guessing that's going on is people here on the newsgroup (although maybe they're on the committee?) saying that the committee would reject such a proposal because of vendor objections to changing unspecified behavior and incompatibility with C. I'm pointing out that the committee has seen fit to cause such breakage in the past, so there is reason to think that they might do so again, in a good cause. Again, when I say that the committee went ahead and broke things in the past, that's not disrespect. I think it's a *good* thing that they did it, and I hope they do it again. --- [ 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 ]