Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!rbutterworth
From: rbutterworth@watmath.UUCP (Ray Butterworth)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re:  Expression Sequencing Query
Message-ID: <2809@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 21-Oct-86 10:01:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmath.2809
Posted: Tue Oct 21 10:01:49 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 22-Oct-86 04:11:40 EDT
References: <4711@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 18

> The ANSI C draft standard provides the unary plus operator for coercing
> evaluation order.  Thus
>     a = +(b + c) + +(d) ;
> should force the sum of b+c to be calculated and added to d. This is
> probably less pleasing to the eye but, as has been pointed out before,
> parentheses already have a meaning in C, and it is explicitly NOT one
> that forces order of evaluation.

Does X3J11 (or any other C "standard") say anything about the
order of evaluation of (possibly redundant) cast expressions?

e.g.      ( ((double)(a+b)) + ((double)(c+d)) )

where a, b, c, and d may or may not be type (double)?

It would certainly be prettier than the unary " +" operator,
and certainly more obvious that the programmer really did want
the given grouping.