From 6150240182818932537 X-Google-Thread: f78e5,174aa7b34b06a51 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news2.volia.net!newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!nntp.theplanet.net!inewsm1.nntp.theplanet.net!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!mutlu.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: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:54:04 GMT Lines: 28 Sender: mail2news@demon.net Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++) Message-ID: References: <1132629737.664847.151630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1132662585.882464.24110@f14g2000cwb.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 1132710856 4712 158.152.254.254 (23 Nov 2005 01:54:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:54:16 +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 jAN1s4F4028720; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:54:04 +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++:2576 kuyper@wizard.net wrote: > Yes, this is one of the several inconsistencies between them. Backwards > compatibility with C was an important objective during the development > of C++, which prevented complete consistency between built-in and > user-defined operators. Specifying order of evaluation completely in C++ would be completely backwards-compatible with C, though, so that's no excuse here. 'i = v[i++];' can and should be the same regardless of whether v is vector or built-in, and that would not be inconsistent with C. > However, there's a lot of confusion and argument about what constitutes > a use of the value for that purpose. The safest thing to do is to avoid > any construct that might be construed as using the previous value for > any other purpose. The right thing to do is to get rid of this stupidity from the language once and for all and define the order of evaluation completely, including when side effects happen, as strictly left-to-right and operands before operation. --- [ 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 ]