But then, the user knows he's using the initialization library, and operator, has a different meaning in that context, just like operator<< means something else in the context of a Spirit gramar.
I see. So I'd like to make a quick poll for Boosters: Overloading the comma operator in a way that could change order of evaluation of its arguments is:
a) an obsolete coding standard b) a valid coding standard c) a valid coding standard, but for reasons x, y, and z, the initialization library doesn't violate it/violates it but gets away with it/etc.
I'm not sure which of a/b/c I am, but if I saw the below code I would be surprised if foo() was not evaluated before bar(). If it was a function: f( foo(), bar() ); would foo() always be executed before bar()? If I was reviewing that code I'd demand either a comment on that line pointing out that either could be called first, or request that foo() and bar() are evaluated and assigned to variables first. Darren
v += foo(), bar();
the code will be same as:
operator,(operator+=(v, foo()), bar());
so the order of executing foo() and bar() is unspecified. This might surprise the user.