Boost logo

Boost :

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,();

   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.


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