Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #119503

Re: is "x = ++f ++f" a valid statement ? PLO

From	Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c++
Subject	Re: is "x = ++f ++f" a valid statement ? PLO
Date	2024-06-22 13:20 -0400
Organization	i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID	<v5715b$onl3$11@i2pn2.org> (permalink)
References	(6 earlier) <v55ic7$3j9dh$2@dont-email.me> <v56bdu$3no6g$1@dont-email.me> <v56gn3$3olbi$2@dont-email.me> <v56ofv$3q494$1@dont-email.me> <v56u1l$3r81c$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 6/22/24 12:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/22/2024 9:52 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 22/06/2024 14:40, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2024 6:09 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 22/06/2024 06:02, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/2024 10:42 PM, James Kuyper wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/24 7:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> When we assume the *= assigns
>>>>>>> the result of the RHS * the LHS to the LHS
>>>>>>> "x *= ++f * ++f"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> means x = x * (++f * ++f)
>>>>>>> thus cannot have implementation defined behavior.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are correct about that conclusion, though I don't see what your
>>>>>> premise has to do with it. The expression ++f * ++f has, all by 
>>>>>> itself,
>>>>>> undefined behavior, 
>>>>>
>>>>> It would seem to be naturally defined to be Left to right
>>>>> ++f from 2 to 3
>>>>> ++f from 3 to 4
>>>>> 3 * 4
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some programming languages define the order of evaluation for 
>>>> subexpressions like this.  Neither C nor C++ do (except for specific 
>>>> operators, which do not include multiplication).
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't really matter what you consider "natural" or not - it 
>>>> matters what the standards say.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It would be bad for the standards to be counter-intuitive.
>>>
>>
>> People's "intuition" varies wildly.  Pretty much any definition would 
>> be counter-intuitive to someone.  That's why language standards try to 
>> have precise definitions, rather than just saying "it all works pretty 
>> much like you'd expect".
>>
>> We realise the definition of C and C++ expression evaluation does not 
>> match what you thought was "intuitive".  That does not matter - it 
>> would not matter even if lots of C and C++ programmers agreed with 
>> you.  What matters for these languages is what their standards /say/.  
>> That way, we can look at clear facts written in official documents, 
>> rather than trying to rely on what random people think about to be how 
>> they imagine things ought to be.
>>
>> You can happily feel that C would be better if evaluation order were 
>> strictly define.  Some people will agree with that, others will 
>> disagree - but it will not make a blind bit of difference to the 
>> actual /facts/ of the matter.
>>
>>
> 
> Then make the rule strict left to right unless otherwise specified.
> int x = 2 + 3 * 5; // is otherwise specified by operator precedence.
> 

Join the ISO Committe and try to lobby for it.

There are good reasons it isn't defined that way.

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 16:14 +0200
  Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2024-06-18 18:53 -0700
    Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-06-19 17:40 +0200
    Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 16:55 -0500
      Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 18:10 -0400
        Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 18:06 -0500
          Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 20:14 -0400
          Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 17:35 -0700
            Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 22:58 -0500
              Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 23:18 -0700
                Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 07:38 -0500
                Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:45 -0400
                Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 09:13 -0500
                Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 10:23 -0400
                Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-23 11:48 +0300
                Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 17:54 -0700
          Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-06-21 23:42 -0400
            Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 23:02 -0500
              Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-22 13:09 +0200
                Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 07:40 -0500
                Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:56 -0400
                Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 12:14 -0700
                Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-22 16:52 +0200
                Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 11:27 -0500
                Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 13:20 -0400
                Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 17:55 -0700
                Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-23 14:46 +0200
              Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-06-22 15:48 -0400
  Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-18 22:27 -0400
  Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 21:51 -0500
    Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 21:51 -0700
    Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-23 07:32 -0400
      Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-23 07:59 -0500
        Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-23 14:25 -0400
          Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-23 14:18 -0500
            Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-23 16:23 -0400
              Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-24 09:11 +0200
  Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? what@tf.com (testuseri2p) - 2024-07-22 17:51 +0000
    Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-22 14:58 -0700
    Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-22 21:57 -0400
      Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-22 20:40 -0700
        Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-23 10:15 -0400
        Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-23 07:28 -0700
          Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-23 14:42 -0700
            Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-23 15:05 -0700
              Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-11 06:22 -0700
                Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-11 14:09 -0700
            Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-11 06:11 -0700
              Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-08-11 09:25 -0400
              Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-08-11 14:17 -0400
      Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-23 07:32 -0700
    Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-22 19:53 -0700
    Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-23 10:01 -0400

csiph-web