From -3004823874700563851 X-Google-Thread: f78e5,52112cea9d2ccd4a X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed.stueberl.de!newsfeed.vmunix.org!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!stump.algebra.com!devnull From: squell@alumina.nl (Marc Schoolderman) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=A75=2E2=2E2/8_unspecified_evluation_od?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?er=3F?= Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 01:52:37 GMT Lines: 28 Sender: mail2news@demon.net Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++) Message-ID: <42E54DA8.50302@alumina.nl> References: <42e41533$0$11001$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: news.news.demon.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1122342768 3872 158.152.254.254 (26 Jul 2005 01:52:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 01:52:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) X-User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050319 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 j6Q1qbVu018540; Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:52:37 +1000 (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++:1490 Hyman Rosen wrote: > Evaluation should proceed > left-to-right. First the function name or expression itself is > evaluated, then each parameter is initialized in turn from its > argument expression, and that expression is fully evaluated with > all side effects completed before evaluation of the next begins. > If an exception is thrown during this process, then all already- > initialized parameters are destructed. That is the only sane and > sensible way to define the process. Then, you'll still have problems in cases like these; istream_iterator w(cin); if( *w++ < *w++ ) ... One of the things I have come to appreciate about C(++) is that the freedom of expressiviness comes with an equal responsibility not to cram too much in one statement. ~Marc. --- [ 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 ]