Boost logo

Boost :

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-08 02:42:06

Darren Cook wrote:

> > No. This is a common misconception and a common source of bugs that only
> > show up when optimizations are turned on. It's also a source of
> > exception-unsafe code, as detailed in Exceptional C++ and a GOTW column.
> That kind of validates using v+=foo(),bar(); then, but also says why you
> shouldn't use it: a common source of bugs.
> I think with an initialization library in particular people will write, and
> expect to always work, something like:
> v+= get(), get(), get();

They surely will expect this to work and it might fail if 'get()' result
depend on the call order. In fact *any* convenient initialization syntax will
have this problem just becase you'd have single expression, and the order of
evaluation is not specified.

So, the question is whether use of "," above makes user think that the order
of evaluation is specified? I think it does not matter. Most users don't know
about sequence points and operator,. The mostly use operator,() inside header
of 'for' loop and don't think much about it.

They will have specific evaluation order in mind for any syntax, for example:

         ( get() )
         ( get() ) ;

So, the primary thing is avoiding unsafe 'get()'s functions, like one which
modify global state or return naked pointers.

- Volodya

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at