Hacker News Reader

Yes, but that's just a subset of expressions where unspecified sequencing applied. For instance, the example with two `print()` as parameters would have a sequence point (in pre-C++11 terminology) separating any reads/writes inside the `print` due to the function calls. It would never be UB even though the order in which the prints are called is still unspecified.

View on HN

IIRC the point was that there was no sequence point between argument evaluation, so for example f(++i, ++i) was UB. Or maybe it was only for builtin operators?

Cppreference is not authoritative[1], but seems to support my recollection. In fact it states that the f(++i, ++i) was UB till C++17.

[1] https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/eval_order.html, Pre C++11 Ordering Rules, point (2).

`f(++i, ++i)` is/was indeed UB, but the example in munificent's comment was `foo(print(1), print(2))` which as far as I know is not even if both `print` calls read/write the same memory.

(5) in the paragraph I mentioned earlier seems to prevent interleaving of function calls, which admittedly would make the language hard to use. So I think you are right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com