About initializaion list

[³á³á³á³á]

int i = 3, j = i;

is this well-defined?

because someone says
"The order of evaluation of initializers is not defined."

--
|
 ___
(-_-)
<¡ä¡ä>¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w ªÅ´ßªª³õ shepjeng.twbbs.org ¢w¢w¢w
¡þ plum.cs.nccu.edu.tw

[Dan Pop]

In <48********@shepjeng.twbbs.org> GA************@shepjeng.twbbs.org (³á³á³á³á) writes:

int i = 3, j = i;

is this well-defined?
Yes.
because someone says
"The order of evaluation of initializers is not defined."

The order of evaluation of an expression used as initialiser is not
defined.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de

[Mantorok Redgormor]

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote in message news:<bj**********@sunnews.cern.ch>...

In <48********@shepjeng.twbbs.org> GA************@shepjeng.twbbs.org (³á³á³á³á) writes:

int i = 3, j = i;

is this well-defined?
Yes.

because someone says
"The order of evaluation of initializers is not defined."

The order of evaluation of an expression used as initialiser is not
defined.

j = i; can't "i" be considered an expression or sub-expression?
Dan

[Andreas Kahari]

In article <41**************************@posting.google.com >,
Mantorok Redgormor wrote:

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote in message
news:<bj**********@sunnews.cern.ch>...

The order of evaluation of an expression used as initialiser is not
defined.

j = i; can't "i" be considered an expression or sub-expression?

Yes, but I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about the order of
evalutaion of a single variable.
--
Andreas Kähäri

[Jirka Klaue]

Mantorok Redgormor wrote:

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote in message news:<bj**********@sunnews.cern.ch>...

In <48********@shepjeng.twbbs.org> GA************@shepjeng.twbbs.org (³á³á³á³á) writes:

int i = 3, j = i;

is this well-defined?

Yes.

because someone says
"The order of evaluation of initializers is not defined."

The order of evaluation of an expression used as initialiser is not
defined.

j = i; can't "i" be considered an expression or sub-expression?

And how does it matter which part of i is evaluated first?

Jirka

[Thomas Matthews]

GA************@shepjeng.twbbs.org wrote:

int i = 3, j = i;

is this well-defined?

because someone says
"The order of evaluation of initializers is not defined." This issue can be resolved by using two lines:
int i = 3;
int j = i;

In the above statements, there is no ambiguity.


--
|
 ___
(-_-)
<???>?w?w?w?w?w?w?w?w?w?w?w?w?w?w?w?w ?W^???? shepjeng.twbbs.org ?w?w?w
?? plum.cs.nccu.edu.tw

WTF is the above crap?
Signatures should not contain ANSI escape sequences, since many
newsreaders don't interpret them.

--
Thomas Matthews

C++ newsgroup welcome message:
http://www.slack.net/~shiva/welcome.txt
C++ Faq: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite
C Faq: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/c-faq/top.html
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ faq:
http://www.raos.demon.uk/acllc-c++/faq.html
Other sites:
http://www.josuttis.com -- C++ STL Library book

[Irrwahn Grausewitz]

Thomas Matthews <Th**********************@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

GA************@shepjeng.twbbs.org wrote:

int i = 3, j = i;

is this well-defined?

because someone says
"The order of evaluation of initializers is not defined."

This issue can be resolved by using two lines:
int i = 3;
int j = i;

In the above statements, there is no ambiguity.

Where is the ambiguity in:

int i = 3, j = i;

then?

Irrwahn
--
do not write: void main(...)
do not use gets()
do not cast the return value of malloc()
do not fflush( stdin )
read the c.l.c-faq: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html

[pete]

³á³á³á³á wrote:

int i = 3, j = i;

is this well-defined?

because someone says
"The order of evaluation of initializers is not defined.

Where does the standard say that ?

--
pete

[Dave Thompson]

On 11 Sep 2003 11:36:02 GMT, GA************@shepjeng.twbbs.org
(³á³á³á³á) wrote:

int i = 3, j = i;

is this well-defined?

because someone says
"The order of evaluation of initializers is not defined."

They are wrong. An initializer is a full-expression and the end of a
full-expression is a sequence point. 6.8p3.

Perhaps they intended, or meant and you misunderstood, that for a
single variable of aggregate type (array or struct) initialized by an
initializer-list, 6.7.8p23, "The order in which any side effects occur
among the initialization list expressions is unspecified.130)" "130)
In particular, the evaluation order need not be the same as the order
of subobject initialization." which must be textual order, p19.

- David.Thompson1 at worldnet.att.net