Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!srcsip!tcnet!nis!quad!dts
From: dts@quad.uucp (David T. Sandberg)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: comma operator
Message-ID: <217@quad.uucp>
Date: 5 Aug 89 23:05:42 GMT
References: <10099@mpx2.mpx.com> <93@microsoft.UUCP> <10100@mpx2.mpx.com> <44c53d5b.f9df@gtephx.UUCP> <1351@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> <3287@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> <3611@buengc.BU.EDU>
Reply-To: dts@quad.uucp (David T. Sandberg)
Organization: Quadric Systems, Richfield MN
Lines: 25

In article <3611@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
:In article <3287@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> SMITHJ@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
:>Maybe I'm mistaken, but I'm sure that all the documentation I've read warns
:>that the *comma* operator ----does not----- guarantee evaluation in any order.
:>Specifically, the Microsoft 5.0 manual mentions this.
:
:HAHAHAHEEHEEEHOHOHOHOHAHAHEEEEEEhaaaawheheheeeehoohohohohaha
:
:Whinny!  Laughed myself horse on that one.
:
:You're probably not mistaken, though; I don't doubt a bit that a
:Microsoft compiler for any language would implement it in such a way as
:to controvert every tenet of the language's original specifications.

Come on, give Microsoft a break here.  At least one article has
appeared which sets the record straight on this; MSC treats the
comma operator in the correct manner (left to right order of
evaluation), and the person above was wholly mistaken.  Please:
Microsoft gets quite enough grief for their real problems; it's
pointless to badrap them for bugs that *don't* exist.

-- 
                                  David Sandberg
 "bidibidibidibidi... here's      PSEUDO: dts@quad.uucp
      your flower, Buck"          ACTUAL: ..uunet!rosevax!sialis!quad!dts