Stewart Gordon wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
<snip>
For two, what problem did Andrei point out? Order of evaluation of
function arguments? On the contrary, he said "now that order of
evaluation will be defined to be left-to-right in D, the semantics
would be quite the same". Your code is what you'd have to use in D1,
but in D2, the simpler version would suffice.
What do you understand by the combination of "now" and "will be"?
I understood that he was speaking either sarcastically or hypothetically.
Or can you find any official statement of this change, let alone a
rationale for it?
No, sorry. Usually I strive to be precise, but this time I just wasn't.
The plan is to define order of evaluation to be lexical order. Somehow I
can't convince Walter that that means assignment too!
e1[e2] = e3;
means:
1. Evaluate e1
2. Evaluate e2
3. Evaluate []
4. Evaluate e3
5. Evaluate assignment.
Walter wants:
1. Evaluate e3. Why in the world, I have no idea.
2, 3. Evaluate e1 and e2, I'm not sure in which order he thinks is right
4. Evaluate []
4. Evaluate =
Lexical order rules. Lexical order dammit!
Walter and I see eye to eye probably 95% of the time, which has two
disadvantages: (a) everybody here thinks one is influencing the other
when in fact most of the time we arrive at the same conclusion from very
different paths, (b) the remaining 5% are disconcerting. This is one of
those cases.
Andrei
