From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d1df6bc3799debed
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Not intended for use in medical,
Date: 1997/05/04
Message-ID: <dewar.862775250@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 239333839
References: <3.0.32.19970423164855.00746db8@mail.4dcomm.com>
 <dewar.862270256@merv> <5k5ifi$8db@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>
 <x7vohassedl.fsf@pogner.demon.co.uk> <5kgu95$kb7@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-05-04T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Kaz said

<<Sorry about this C intrusion into comp.lang.ada. I didn't intend that
  example to spark a discussion about C semantics, but just to clear up,
  the && operator in C has sequencing properties. Its left constituent
  must not only be evaluated before its right, but its side effects must
  also be settled before the left side is evaluated. Hence   x++ && x++  is
  perfectly well defined. The program I was writing depended on this crucial
  sequencing property.>>

  Yes, legal, but horrible. A good reminder of why Ada does NOT have
  the ++ operator built in :-)

<<The complexity was hidden behind friendly macros. :)>>

  How can it ever be friendly to hide a ++ in a macro, such that the
  peculiar rules about not using more than one ++ in an expression
  suddenly apply in a hidden manner to the macro, Ugh!