> Hi Robert!
>
> I'm looking at the docs right now and so far it looks _far_ better than anything I'v seen
> before.
> Congratulations!
>
> A small nit-pick:
>
> The pointer example uses a for-loop construct of the form:
>
> for(i = 0; i++ < 10;)
>
> unless there's some clause elsewhere, according to 5.4, the result of the expression (i++ <
10)
> is unspecified (there's no sequence point between the operators)
>
Sorry... I thought these operators had the same precedence, but ++ has higher precedence so it
comes first.
one of us is clearly missing something ..... when the ++ happens is irrelevant i++ has a _value_ of i BEFORE the ++.
There's still something wrong with the example though: the first stops[i] index from 1 (because 'i' is 1 already when the body is entered)
Fernando Cacciola
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
"There oughta be a law"
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
