Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu!raksha.eng.ohio-state.edu!rob
From: rob@raksha.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: ambiguous ?
Message-ID: <3348@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 27 Oct 89 01:32:54 GMT
References: <2320@convex.UUCP> <14113@lanl.gov>
Sender: news@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu
Reply-To: rob@raksha.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere)
Organization: Ohio State Univ, College of Engineering
Lines: 17

In article <14113@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
[on evaluation order of function arguments]
>[...] The above Fortran rule is too restrictive.  The
>C rule is too permissive.  The middle ground would give the user
>more control _and_ better insure the correctness of the code.

Could you _please_ explain why you think this is important at all?  Throwing
interacting side effects into a function call is one very good way to confuse
the sh*t out everybody, including the poor person who has to maintain the
code.  If you need side effects in your arguments and they interact, assign to
variables first, that way it is clear what you're doing.  If your compiler
doesn't like sequences like that, send your vendor oxidizing mail.  As for
readability, I think any problems in that department are more due to fact that
you are trying to do something messy and very complex than to any language
deficiencies.  Besides, just how often does it happen?

SR