Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!rutgers!gatech!bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!jfc From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: nonportable code or incorrect compilers? Message-ID: <6142@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> Date: 12 Jul 88 01:44:52 GMT References: <133@daitc.ARPA> <430@uwovax.uwo.ca> <374@accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu> <8228@brl-smoke.ARPA> <376@accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu> Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU Reply-To: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 24 In article <376@accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu> rob@kaa.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) writes: >Whoops. You didn't see it because it isn't there, I *did* mean >conversion. However, the conversion rule says that a is to be >converted to double; this seems to contradict the idea that a is to be >computed *once*. I thought the purpose of the definition was so that things like subscripts and function calls needed to compute the lhs would not be repeated: a[f(x++) + --y] += 43; has different results than a[f(x++) + --y] = a[f(x++) + --y] + 43; To make this consistent with the standard, distinguish between "evaluation" and the type conversions required in computation. John Carr "When they turn the pages of history, jfc@Athena.mit.edu When these days have passed long ago, Will they read of us with sadness For the seeds that we let grow?" --Neil Peart