From 3431439391033383882 X-Google-Thread: f78e5,174aa7b34b06a51 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.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: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 22:50:14 -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: kuyper@wizard.net Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Is this really unspecified behavior? Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <1132759176.368850.264850@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1132629737.664847.151630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1132662585.882464.24110@f14g2000cwb.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:1.7.12) Gecko/20050920 Firefox/1.0.7,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.242.71.114; posting-account=bPBxkgwAAABzUwlEAMy-xGlLqZFJ5Jz_ 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: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 22:40:23 CST Lines: 25 NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.182.171.162 X-Trace: sv3-0NFS9GslLpxtQUu2p3a/4bj9q4vzIMm0tbWs6ZdKSxhLS61EoxiNkX9m+xTX1c7lDpnbFCA3HeNByYq!J5F+mikoGMB7zo8S7Vk6+iuyhgdr4kpnDRMWNIYCZa1e/Ce/HoA9E7KSOhgQ7KYiThHfIYdrgG/R!+CCeyqp1vkQRbZMaZxNLDoJFoKKVT9pj1aMCVHcetv4= 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++:2586 "Andrew Koenig" wrote: > "Hyman Rosen" wrote in message > news:E1EeZw5-0004wI-00@chx400.switch.ch... . > > Specifying order of evaluation completely in C++ would > > be completely backwards-compatible with C, though, so > > that's no excuse here. > > The trouble is that if order of evaluation were completely specified in C++, > there might be C++ compilers that would be required to give different > results from existing C implementations for the same program (assuming, of > course, that the program was in the intersection of C and C++). 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. --- [ 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 ]