From 3824690312245828238 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: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 19:50:11 -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: "Bob Bell" Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Is this really unspecified behavior? Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <1133551647.532929.325730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> References: <1132629737.664847.151630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1132662585.882464.24110@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1132759176.368850.264850@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1132933832.802917.153350@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com User-Agent: G2/0.2 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) X-HTTP-Via: 1.1 proxy (NetCache NetApp/5.6.2R1) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=160.33.20.11; posting-account=YkQmFgwAAADb4VCQxbKct8M2us8SA5QU 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: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 19:48:54 CST Lines: 36 NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.182.171.162 X-Trace: sv3-rCKhhtrtscrHqMzbt7tDAKmGeqqj/Dl2375f1YOakpf4r8DPUkiXxxImmghTuGU0z8kou2cWTK7D+O/!j1dzAcDOqkLnafpMuptcHEopkARTrRjL1BLPem3NGjut6EEku4hx20s1BM9NpYBoKPkrCO/pSOox!mrYu1jXWaHmQZDXRRRu47E4WZaIJKFs7xk3w9U1Tlhc= 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++:2658 kuyper@wizard.net wrote: > "Andrew Koenig" wrote: > > 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 :-) > . > > But you can't ignore reality by wishing it away. > > I'm not wishing it away; all I said is that I don't care about such > code. Compiler vendors, as you've pointed out, do have to care about > such code if it's become a widely used idiom. In the context of this > discussion, I doubt that "i=v[i++];" is in that category. On the other > hand, there are probably some widely used idioms where the order of > evaluation is both important and (at best) unpsecified. I think it would be helpful for your cause to list those widely-used idioms. Personally, I can't think of a widely-used idiom that depends on a particular evaluation order, and to the best of my knowledge any such idiom should merely be considered broken. However, if you know of any such idioms, I'd be interested to hear about them. Bob --- [ 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 ]