Arvind Balodia <arvind.balo...@...> wrote:
>
> Well if you are taking argument of left and right to
> say that my reasons are wrong.
Your reasons are irrelevant.
> well again Mr.
> look
> at the statement again
> v=(m++)+(++m);
Look at the C++ Standard, 5p4 (from my old draft)
Except where noted, the order of evaluation of operands
of individual operators and subexpressions of individual
expressions, and the order in which side effects take
place, is unspecified. Between the previous and next
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
sequence point a scalar object shall have its stored
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
value modified at most once by the evaluation of an
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
expression. Furthermore, the prior value shall be
accessed only to determine the value to be stored. ...
This means conforming implementations to do _whatever_
they like with such ill formed expressions.
Analysing the behaviour of such broken expressions on
specific implementations is a hiding to nothing.
--
Peter
