Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website for Email) wrote:
expect to always work, something like: v+= get(), get(), get();
They surely will expect this to work and it might fail if 'get()' result depend on the call order. In fact *any* convenient initialization syntax
will
have this problem just becase you'd have single expression, and the order
of
evaluation is not specified.
I think Darren was referring to get() as of a read() function that bumps some stream pointer.
Yes, I don't think I contradict to that.
At any rate, I believe your comment is inaccurate. The classic array initialization { expr, expr, expr ... } does not have that problem, and is convenient.
Ehm, since we're talking about assignment library, then I surely mean any intialization syntax *except for classic one*. If we agree the classic one is OK, then we don't have a problem to solve.
of 'for' loop and don't think much about it.
"Nobody knows what most programmers do" -- Bjarne Stroustrup :o)
(The emoticon is mine.)
I know about folks which are phisically around me -- they don't know what sequence point it.
Unfortunately, the discussion does not flow the way I had hoped :o). My intent is to figure out the opinion of the boost community about the advice against overloading the comma, and, and or operators, given by people like Scott Meyers and others. Is that a good coding standard or not?
Ok, then my answer to your question is: - (c), in case everybody knows about sequence points, immediately aware of unspecified evaluation order everywhere, and use comma to force specific evaluation order. - (a), otherwise - Volodya