On 11/25/2015 01:25 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/24/2015 02:55 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 23/11/15 23:01, Jason Merrill wrote:
There's a proposal working through the C++ committee to define the order
of evaluation of subexpressions that previously had unspecified
ordering:
http://www.open-std
Hi,
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015, David Brown wrote:
> That is all true - but if you have to pick an order that makes sense to
> users, especially of functions that are not varargs (i.e., most
> functions), then left-to-right is the only logical, natural order - at
> least for those of use who use left
On 25/11/15 15:47, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:01 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>> There's a proposal working through the C++ committee to define the order of
>>> evaluation of subexpressions that previously had unspecified
On 11/25/2015 11:49 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 11/25/2015 06:25 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The motivating example in the paper suggests that many C++
programmers expect a left to right order of evaluation here
due to the commonality of constructs like chains of calls.
Sure, I often see
foo.ba
On 25 November 2015 at 19:38, wrote:
> I'm really wondering about this proposal. It seems that it could affect
> optimization. It also seems to be a precedent that may not be a good one to
> set. Consider the dozen or so "undefined behavior" examples in
> https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/papers/u
> On Nov 25, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 11/24/2015 02:55 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 23/11/15 23:01, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>> There's a proposal working through the C++ committee to define the order
>>> of evaluation of subexpressions that previously had unspecified ordering:
On 11/25/2015 06:25 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> The motivating example in the paper suggests that many C++
> programmers expect a left to right order of evaluation here
> due to the commonality of constructs like chains of calls.
Sure, I often see
foo.bar(1).bar(2).bar(3), etc.
but does anyone a
On 11/24/2015 02:55 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 23/11/15 23:01, Jason Merrill wrote:
There's a proposal working through the C++ committee to define the order
of evaluation of subexpressions that previously had unspecified ordering:
http://www.open-std.org/Jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/p0145r0.
Hi,
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:01 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > There's a proposal working through the C++ committee to define the order of
> > evaluation of subexpressions that previously had unspecified ordering:
> >
> > http://www.open-std.org/Jtc1/
On 11/23/2015 04:01 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
There's a proposal working through the C++ committee to define the order
of evaluation of subexpressions that previously had unspecified ordering:
http://www.open-std.org/Jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/p0145r0.pdf
I agree with much of this, but was
> In addition, I don't see anything about C compatibility here. It
> would be very confusing, to say the least, if this were to be defined
> in C++ but not C.
Or at least they should get some form of guarantee that future C standards
will not introduce incompatible rules.
--
Eric Botcazou
On 23/11/15 23:01, Jason Merrill wrote:
> There's a proposal working through the C++ committee to define the order
> of evaluation of subexpressions that previously had unspecified ordering:
>
> http://www.open-std.org/Jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/p0145r0.pdf
>
> I agree with much of this, bu
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:01 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> There's a proposal working through the C++ committee to define the order of
> evaluation of subexpressions that previously had unspecified ordering:
>
> http://www.open-std.org/Jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/p0145r0.pdf
>
> I agree with muc
There's a proposal working through the C++ committee to define the order
of evaluation of subexpressions that previously had unspecified ordering:
http://www.open-std.org/Jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/p0145r0.pdf
I agree with much of this, but was concerned about the proposal to
define order
14 matches
Mail list logo
