Gerd Stolpmann <i...@gerd-stolpmann.de> writes: > I don't know for SML, but OCaml also leaves the order unspecified in > which function arguments are evaluated (and ocamlc and ocamlopt behave > even differently in this respect). So I think the problem would > translate to OCaml in some form.
This is a good point. A problem with C (and almost every other language) is that there's a lot of room for debate about what the *standard* means (as opposed to the meaning of particular programs). With the ML family you have a formal framework (lambda calculus, I guess) that makes things quite a bit less ambiguous. You can still have unspecified parts of the semantics, but at least it's clearer where the unspecified parts are! I don't know offhand whether parameter evaluation order is defined for Standard ML, either. But there's a very clear specification that you can look at to find out. (It seems like the sort of thing that would be defined in SML.) Jeffrey -- Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
