Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Order of evaluation and optimizing code
Message-ID: <5338@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 9-Nov-86 03:27:34 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.5338
Posted: Sun Nov  9 03:27:34 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Nov-86 07:09:31 EST
References: <167@houligan.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 12

In article <167@houligan.UUCP> Dave Cornutt writes:
-...  If the compiler does not
-realize the significance of the unary plus and doesn't maintain the specified
-order of evaluation, is the compiled code going to work? ...
-... it might have been better to invent a
-new keyword or symbol to designate a sequence point, so that if the code
-is ported to a compiler that doesn't have it, the problem will become
-apparent immediately.

How about the symbol + which isn't a valid unary operator in K&R C?

In other words, unary + DOES meet your concerns.