From 4542784126188308262 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!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newspeer1.nwr.nac.net!colt.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, 7 Dec 2005 15:53:03 GMT Lines: 36 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> <1132759176.368850.264850@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <5HKjf.205668$zb5.87310@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <200512021422.jB2EMEuC046212@horus.isnic.is> 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 1133970790 6739 158.152.254.254 (7 Dec 2005 15:53:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 15:53:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) X-User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) 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 jB7Fr3k6013077; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 02:53:03 +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++:2690 Andrew Koenig wrote: > 1) The newly ratified C standard; The newly ratified C standard itself had novelties and changes to long-existing C behavior. For example, it changed the rules governing the widening of smaller unsigned types to integral types, and added stringification and token pasting to the preprocessor. The even newer C99 standard adds hefty new syntax to the language for initializations. > Accordingly, I find it completely unsurprising that the committee was much > more deferential to past usage in the case of order of evaluation than it > was in the case of templates, and equally unsurprising that vendors went > along with changes in template behavior where they would not have tolerated > changes in behavior of built-in operators on operands of built-in types. Since I wasn't there, I have no idea whether anyone actually proposed changing evaluation order during the original process. I don't even care. I am advocating that it should be changed now. When I say this, others object that the committee will not consider changes that impact vendors so much, so I point out that the committee has impacted vendors before, and that this would be a change that leaves formerly specified behavior alone. I apologize in advance, but I get a very strong sense that the objections stem more form a reluctance to change the way C and C++ have always behaved than from any other reason, even though the old behavior is bad. --- [ 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 ]