🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4a6r9u$hq5@rdsunx.crd.ge.com>, volpe@bart.crd.ge.com (Christopher
R. Volpe) writes: 
<snip>
|> |>this to satisfy the _unsatisfiable_ edict of `statements are evaluated
|> |>in sequence': after all `f()+f();' is a statement --- is it done
|> |>before or after the statements comprising f? 
|> 
|> It's not unsatisfiable, because the edict includes the phrase "except where
|> otherwise specified", and function calls are one of those exceptions.

And 6.3 `the order of evaluation of subexpressions and ... are both
unspecified' (i.e. the clause which allowed interleaved expressions in the
first place) does not count as `except where otherwise specified'? If the
sequence point on both sides of i++ still leaves i + (a,i++,b) undefined; why
should i + f() where f() is a; i++; b; be any different?

Or rather, not why should it be different: it can be different by fiat. But,
I do not see even the genesis of the claim that the standard currently
specifies it clearly.

Cheers
Tanmoy
-- 
tanmoy@qcd.lanl.gov(128.165.23.46) DECNET: BETA::"tanmoy@lanl.gov"(1.218=1242)
Tanmoy Bhattacharya O:T-8(MS B285)LANL,NM87545 H:#9,3000,Trinity Drive,NM87544
Others see <gopher://yaleinfo.yale.edu:7700/00/Internet-People/internet-mail>,
<http://alpha.acast.nova.edu/cgi-bin/inmgq.pl>or<ftp://csd4.csd.uwm.edu/pub/
internetwork-mail-guide>. -- <http://nqcd.lanl.gov/people/tanmoy/tanmoy.html>
fax: 1 (505) 665 3003   voice: 1 (505) 665 4733    [ Home: 1 (505) 662 5596 ]