Re: [boost] Re: Re: Pretty Good Initialization Library

From: Darren Cook (darren_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-09 03:38:03

>>It's certainly not to be done without understanding the
>>ramifications. ...
> 
> But the same user will be equally unprepared to unspecified evaluation order 
> in
> 
>    A = get(), get(), get();
> 
> and in
> 
>    A.assign_list(get())(get())(get()) ;
> 
> There's nothing specific about operator,();

Wouldn't
   A << get() << get() << get() ;

always work the way the user expects, even when they switch all 
optimizations on? So wouldn't it be better for the initialization library to 
use operator<< instead of operator, ?   (not sure if that is possible or not 
- I've not looked at that library).

In answer to Andrei's original question I think b) not overloading 
operator,() is still a valid coding standard, because I personally don't 
know  - and do not want to have to know - what a "sequence point" is.

Darren