On Tue 22/04/08 4:46 PM , Christian Böhme monodhs@xxxxxx sent: > > "The correct result"? The correct result is whatever > the standard > > says it is. > > However counter-intuitive to anyone knowing what linear algebra is it > may possibly seem. That's also olds. No, as I pointed out there are counter-examples to your interpretation of "the way things should be." If you apply the conversions out of order of precedence you get undefined behaviour plain and simple. You're refusal to acknowledge that notwithstanding, that's the way things are. And C is not a linear algebra language. It's also not French. So are you next going to complain about the lack of accented keywords? It's also not Pascal, so are you gonna complain about the lack of unit support? > > Right, so it sounds as though you do understand the > standard. > > I do actually understand a lot more than that. What gave it away ? > Is it my pointing to the actual standards text and the insinstence on > doing so for the responders to prove their arguments ? The problem is I could read you the entire ISO C spec, and you'd continue to refuse to acknowledge it. So it's not worth digging things up. The way expressions are parsed in C is well known. Counter-examples to your interpretation are easy to produce. What more do you want? > > What, then, is your point? > > All in the above. No, you're just a troll. Even when it's plain as day that your interpretation is wrong, you continue to press on the point. This is not a C standards mailing list. If you want a hand in the next ISO C draft, then contact them, not us. I don't know what you had hoped to accomplish here. GCC is not wrong in the code it produces [in this case], your code is buggy in that you interpreted the standard wrong. Tom
