On Wednesday, 26 September 2012 at 12:48:19 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 09/26/2012 02:07 PM, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 September 2012 at 22:58:11 UTC, Iain Buclaw
wrote:
Pop quiz!
Without cheating, I invite people to have a good guess what
'abc' is
equal to, but just to narrow it down.
1) It isn't "ABC".
2) On x86/x86_64, it isn't "ACB".
3) On everything else, it's the reverse of what you'd expect
on
x86/x86_64.
I'd say abc's value is "unspecified", and any attempt at
predicting it
would be bogus. That's my answer anyways
...
Why? This is not useful behaviour.
What do you mean "why"? Because order of evaluation is not
specified, so the value of abc is not specified. That was my
answer. The question wasn't really "what would useful behavior
be".
IMO: useful behavior would be if it was explicitly illegal to
modify (or modify + read) the same value twice in the same
expression. I'd rather expressions such as:
A()[] = B()[] + C()[];
x[i] = ++i + 1;
Be illegal rather than have (an arbitrarily defined) specified
behavior. Trying to specify a specific behavior in such cases is
opening a can of worms.
