From: Victor A. Wagner, Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-04 11:29:40
At Thursday 2003-09-04 07:49, you wrote:
> > Hi Robert!
> > I'm looking at the docs right now and so far it looks _far_ better than
> anything I'v seen
> > before.
> > Congratulations!
> > A small nit-pick:
> > The pointer example uses a for-loop construct of the form:
> > for(i = 0; i++ < 10;)
> > unless there's some clause elsewhere, according to 5.4, the result of
> the expression (i++ <
> > is unspecified (there's no sequence point between the operators)
>Sorry... I thought these operators had the same precedence, but ++ has
>higher precedence so it
one of us is clearly missing something ..... when the ++ happens is
irrelevant i++ has a _value_ of i BEFORE the ++.
>There's still something wrong with the example though:
>index from 1 (because 'i' is 1 already when the body is entered)
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
"There oughta be a law"
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk