--- In [email protected], "peternilsson42" <peternilsso...@...> wrote: > > Arvind Balodia <arvind.balodia@> 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 no:thing. > > -- > Peter > Ah, perchance the dark shades of the subcontinent are falling upon us from the land of antiquated no longer supported compilers that the all knowing exemplary gurus of programming force feed their unenlightened students. Perchance only a total gross misunderstanding on my part or maybe even more likely due to my unquestionably ever prevalent ineptitude and naivete, I have garnered a distinct and irrefutable impression that the esteemed and unquestioned masters of their trade that predominate at the highest levels of academic achievement in the subcontinent, are incapable of understanding or using the latest Integrated Development Environments (IDE's) such as, say CODE::BLOCKS or Microsoft Visual Studio. It wouldn't be a limited enlightenment that wholly constrains them to Turbo C would it? I think they would be better off using "Small C" or Tom Swan's "Type and Learn C." In addition, I have detected a proclivity wherein one gets the impression that all of the gurus minored in psychology, based upon there insistence on asking questions beyond the pale, "videlicit" what happens when you combine prefix and postfix notation such as: a = (b++)**(--b)++(c--) To my constrained and limited ability at understanding, this is designed as a gross insult to the poor student, which for some in academia is the only way in which they are able to substantiate their gross incompetence. Since this question has been repeated at such a high rate, it is obvious that the gurus never tell the students that, as Peter so nicely points out, this is specifically excluded in the standard. Oh, but the standard. Perchance the learned gurus don't really know the standard since they insist on using non-standard compilers?
Please, excuse the mad rantings, but these type of questions seem to appear periodically, albeit I have not done a Fourier analysis to evaluate any patterns of idiocy. Kocmotex Esse aut non esse, shto voproci.
