• "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> Feb 19 2004
• Ilya Minkov <minkov cs.tum.edu> Feb 20 2004
• "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> Feb 20 2004
• Ilya Minkov <minkov cs.tum.edu> Feb 20 2004
• "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> Feb 20 2004
• Ilya Minkov <minkov cs.tum.edu> Feb 21 2004
• "KTC" <me here.com> Feb 21 2004
• "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> Feb 21 2004
• "KTC" <me here.com> Feb 21 2004
• "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> Feb 21 2004
• "KTC" <me here.com> Feb 22 2004
• "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> Feb 22 2004

All compiles except where marked. All should compile

int main()
{
    char        c;
    char        *p  =   &c;
    unsigned    x   =   0;
    char        b[10];

    p[x] = 'o';
    x[p] = 'k';

    0[p] = 'r';

    b[x] = 'o';
    x[b] = 'k';     /* Compiler wrongly gives error */

    0[b] = 'r';     /* Compiler wrongly gives error */

    return 0;
}

Matthew wrote:
 All compiles except where marked. All should compile


i think it may better stay so. It's definately not very annoying since 
anyone sane wouldn't write that. You could just as well write (x+b) :>

-eye

 Matthew wrote:
 All compiles except where marked. All should compile


 i think it may better stay so. It's definately not very annoying since
 anyone sane wouldn't write that. You could just as well write (x+b) :>


Nonsense. It's non-standard behaviour, and in such a simple thing that any
other compiler handles correctly. I really don't think you'll convince
Walter to *not* do this, given his desire to be fully-conformant.

And as for your assertion that no-one would use such a construct, I'll just
smile, and you can wait until you've read "Imperfect C++". Now you've got
three reasons to buy it (the other ones being the Properties chapter, and my
mentioning your request for properties in the acknowledgements).

:)

Matthew wrote:
Matthew wrote:

All compiles except where marked. All should compile


i think it may better stay so. It's definately not very annoying since
anyone sane wouldn't write that. You could just as well write (x+b) :>


 Nonsense. It's non-standard behaviour, and in such a simple thing that any
 other compiler handles correctly. I really don't think you'll convince
 Walter to *not* do this, given his desire to be fully-conformant.


It's probably so to guard for bugs.

 And as for your assertion that no-one would use such a construct, I'll just
 smile, and you can wait until you've read "Imperfect C++". Now you've got
 three reasons to buy it (the other ones being the Properties chapter, and my
 mentioning your request for properties in the acknowledgements).


I really don't need to count the reasons, i know i want to get it as 
soon as it's out. :> Unfortunately, /me would not be able to raise your 
sales much only by bying it myself.

-eye

"Ilya Minkov" <minkov cs.tum.edu> wrote in message
news:c169kc$1fdf$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 Matthew wrote:
Matthew wrote:

All compiles except where marked. All should compile


i think it may better stay so. It's definately not very annoying since
anyone sane wouldn't write that. You could just as well write (x+b) :>


 Nonsense. It's non-standard behaviour, and in such a simple thing that




 other compiler handles correctly. I really don't think you'll convince
 Walter to *not* do this, given his desire to be fully-conformant.


 It's probably so to guard for bugs.

 And as for your assertion that no-one would use such a construct, I'll




 smile, and you can wait until you've read "Imperfect C++". Now you've




 three reasons to buy it (the other ones being the Properties chapter,




 mentioning your request for properties in the acknowledgements).


 I really don't need to count the reasons, i know i want to get it as
 soon as it's out. :> Unfortunately, /me would not be able to raise your
 sales much only by bying it myself.


Don't be so sure. You might account for up to 50% of sales! (I know my mum's
going to buy one <g>)

Matthew wrote:
I really don't need to count the reasons, i know i want to get it as
soon as it's out. :> Unfortunately, /me would not be able to raise your
sales much only by bying it myself.


 Don't be so sure. You might account for up to 50% of sales! (I know my mum's
 going to buy one <g>)


I've been spreading Word, so i'm sure i account for at most 34% of sales.

-eye

"Matthew" wrote...
 All compiles except where marked. All should compile



Have Walter fixed this already??? :-o Just tried it with 8.40 and it
compiles fine...

A very impress person,
KTC

-- 
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
    - Heinrich Heine

He usually posts a response on the NG.

Did you try all the cases?

I just tried with 8.40.1, and it still fails.

"KTC" <me here.com> wrote in message news:c18pf7$30pl$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Matthew" wrote...
 All compiles except where marked. All should compile



 Have Walter fixed this already??? :-o Just tried it with 8.40 and it
 compiles fine...

 A very impress person,
 KTC

 -- 
 Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
     - Heinrich Heine

"Matthew" wrote...
 He usually posts a response on the NG.

 Did you try all the cases?

 I just tried with 8.40.1, and it still fails.


I've just copied and paste exactly what you posted in the orginial
post and it compiles fine for me...

scppn.exe gives version 8.40.2n

KTC

-- 
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
    - Heinrich Heine

 "Matthew" wrote...
 He usually posts a response on the NG.

 Did you try all the cases?

 I just tried with 8.40.1, and it still fails.


 I've just copied and paste exactly what you posted in the orginial
 post and it compiles fine for me...

 scppn.exe gives version 8.40.2n


That's what I have.

I must conclude that I pasted an incomplete version. Including here again
...

Walter, I presume this'll be easy-ish to fix. Any ETA? :)

"Matthew" wrote...
 That's what I have.

 I must conclude that I pasted an incomplete version. Including here


 ...

 Walter, I presume this'll be easy-ish to fix. Any ETA? :)


Ahha, discovered why. It compiles if one compiles it as C++ but not if
it's C.

"KTC" <me here.com> wrote in message news:c1a3um$2ivm$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Matthew" wrote...
 That's what I have.

 I must conclude that I pasted an incomplete version. Including here


 ...

 Walter, I presume this'll be easy-ish to fix. Any ETA? :)


 Ahha, discovered why. It compiles if one compiles it as C++ but not if
 it's C.


That's interesting. It also explains a few things I was wondering about. :)