Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!purdue!umd5!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Question about regrouping of operands
Message-ID: <7938@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 20 May 88 10:28:10 GMT
References: <16490001@hpcllz2.HP.COM> <881@actnyc.UUCP> <4049@haddock.ISC.COM> <891@actnyc.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 8

In article <891@actnyc.UUCP> jsb@actnyc.UUCP (The Invisible Man) writes:
>I ... wonder if the current wording truly expresses the intent of the
>committee.

Damn right it does!  Order of evaluation is no longer ambiguous for
commutative/associative operators.  (Side-effects can in many cases be
deferred until a sequence point.)  When it can be determined that the
rearrangement will have no adverse effect, an implementation can still
generate whatever code its little heart desires.