Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Order of Evaluation (plus ?'s)
Message-ID: <1989Nov18.232716.23790@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <21265@usc.edu> <13871@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 89 23:27:16 GMT

In article <13871@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> bailey@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU.UUCP (Kirk Bailey) writes:
>...the programmer could be assured of a fixed evaluation
>order without requiring the use of temps.  The current doc's I have seem to
>no longer mention this (or the synchronization aspect of unary '+')?

Look very carefully at the wording about parentheses.  Compilers are now
required to consider parentheses as mandating order of evaluation, not
just grouping.  (I personally liked unary plus better, but...)

>On an unrelated front:  Is it conforming practice to cast the value returned
>from a function call to void when the function returns a struct or union?

The Constraints section of 3.3.4 contains an exception that makes it legal
to cast anything to void.
-- 
A bit of tolerance is worth a  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
megabyte of flaming.           | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu