• "Xinok" <xinok live.com> Jun 04 2012
• simendsjo <simendsjo gmail.com> Jun 04 2012
• "Bernard Helyer" <b.helyer gmail.com> Jun 04 2012
• simendsjo <simendsjo gmail.com> Jun 04 2012
• "Xinok" <xinok live.com> Jun 04 2012
• "bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> Jun 04 2012
• "Bernard Helyer" <b.helyer gmail.com> Jun 04 2012
• "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> Jun 04 2012
• "bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> Jun 04 2012
• "Xinok" <xinok live.com> Jun 04 2012
• Kevin Cox <kevincox.ca gmail.com> Jun 04 2012
• Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> Jun 05 2012
• Mikael Lindsten <mikael lindsten.net> Jun 05 2012
• Dejan Lekic <dejan.lekic gmail.com> Jun 06 2012
• Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> Jun 06 2012

"Xinok" <xinok live.com> writes:

The increment and decrement operators are highly dependent on 
operator precedence and associativity. If the actions are 
performed in a different order than the developer presumed, it 
could cause unexpected behavior.

I had a simple idea to change the behavior of this operator. It 
works for the postfix operators but not prefix. Take the 
following code:

size_t i = 5;
writeln(i--, i--, i--);

As of now, this writes "543". With my idea, instead it would 
write, "555". Under the hood, the compiler would rewrite the code 
as:

size_t i = 5;
writeln(i, i, i);
--i;
--i;
--i;

It decrements the variable after the current statement. While not 
the norm, this behavior is at least predictable. For non-static 
variables, such as array elements, the compiler could store a 
temporary reference to the variable so it can decrement it 
afterwards.

I'm not actually proposing we actually make this change. I simply 
thought it was a nifty idea worth sharing.

simendsjo <simendsjo gmail.com> writes:

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 20:36:14 +0200, Xinok <xinok live.com> wrote:

 The increment and decrement operators are highly dependent on operator  
 precedence and associativity. If the actions are performed in a  
 different order than the developer presumed, it could cause unexpected  
 behavior.

 I had a simple idea to change the behavior of this operator. It works  
 for the postfix operators but not prefix. Take the following code:

 size_t i = 5;
 writeln(i--, i--, i--);

 As of now, this writes "543". With my idea, instead it would write,  
 "555". Under the hood, the compiler would rewrite the code as:

 size_t i = 5;
 writeln(i, i, i);
 --i;
 --i;
 --i;

 It decrements the variable after the current statement. While not the  
 norm, this behavior is at least predictable. For non-static variables,  
 such as array elements, the compiler could store a temporary reference  
 to the variable so it can decrement it afterwards.

 I'm not actually proposing we actually make this change. I simply  
 thought it was a nifty idea worth sharing.


If I ever saw a construct like that, I would certainly test how that  
works, then rewrite it.
I wouldn't find it natural with the new behavior either. I would expect  
"543" or "345".
How often do you come across code like that? I think it's an anti-pattern,  
and shouldn't be encouraged even if it was easier to understand.

"Bernard Helyer" <b.helyer gmail.com> writes:

If you find yourself using postfix increment/decrement operators 
in the same function call in multiple arguments, slap yourself 
firmly in the face and refactor that code.

simendsjo <simendsjo gmail.com> writes:

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 20:57:11 +0200, simendsjo <simendsjo gmail.com> wrote:

 On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 20:36:14 +0200, Xinok <xinok live.com> wrote:

 The increment and decrement operators are highly dependent on operator  
 precedence and associativity. If the actions are performed in a  
 different order than the developer presumed, it could cause unexpected  
 behavior.

 I had a simple idea to change the behavior of this operator. It works  
 for the postfix operators but not prefix. Take the following code:

 size_t i = 5;
 writeln(i--, i--, i--);

 As of now, this writes "543". With my idea, instead it would write,  
 "555". Under the hood, the compiler would rewrite the code as:

 size_t i = 5;
 writeln(i, i, i);
 --i;
 --i;
 --i;

 It decrements the variable after the current statement. While not the  
 norm, this behavior is at least predictable. For non-static variables,  
 such as array elements, the compiler could store a temporary reference  
 to the variable so it can decrement it afterwards.

 I'm not actually proposing we actually make this change. I simply  
 thought it was a nifty idea worth sharing.


 If I ever saw a construct like that, I would certainly test how that  
 works, then rewrite it.
 I wouldn't find it natural with the new behavior either. I would expect  
 "543" or "345".
 How often do you come across code like that? I think it's an  
 anti-pattern, and shouldn't be encouraged even if it was easier to  
 understand.


Oh, and what should writeln(i++, ++i, ++i, i++) do?

It is messy whatever the logic implementation.

"Xinok" <xinok live.com> writes:

On Monday, 4 June 2012 at 20:08:57 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
 Oh, and what should writeln(i++, ++i, ++i, i++) do?

 It is messy whatever the logic implementation.


For prefix operators, it would be logical to perform the action 
before the statement, such as the code would be rewritten as:

++i
++i
writeln(i, i, i, i)
i++
i++

However, I already stated that it wouldn't work for prefix 
operators. Take this statement:

++foo(++i)

There's no way to increment the return value of foo without 
calling foo first. This "logic" would only work for the postfix 
operators.

I came up with the idea after refactoring this code:
https://github.com/Xinok/XSort/blob/master/timsort.d#L111

Each call to mergeAt is followed by --stackLen. I could have used 
stackLen-- in the mergeAt statement instead, but I didn't want to 
rely on operator precedence for the correct behavior.

"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

Bernard Helyer:

 If you find yourself using postfix increment/decrement 
 operators in the same function call in multiple arguments, slap 
 yourself firmly in the face and refactor that code.


I think this is not acceptable, you can't rely on that, future D 
programers will not slap themselves and refactor their code. Some 
of the acceptable alternatives are:
1) Make post/pre increments return void. This avoid those 
troubles. I think Go language has chosen this. This is my 
preferred solution.
2) Turn that code into a syntax error for some other cause.
3) Design the language so post/pre increments give a defined 
effect on all D compilers on all CPUs. Walter since lot of time 
says this is planned for D. This leads to deterministic programs, 
but sometimes they are hard to understand and hard to translate 
(port) to other languages any way. Translating code to other 
languages is not irrelevant because D must be designed to make it 
easy to understand the semantics of the code.

Bye,
bearophile

"Bernard Helyer" <b.helyer gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 4 June 2012 at 20:44:42 UTC, bearophile wrote:
 Bernard Helyer:

 If you find yourself using postfix increment/decrement 
 operators in the same function call in multiple arguments, 
 slap yourself firmly in the face and refactor that code.


 I think this is not acceptable, you can't rely on that, future 
 D programers will not slap themselves and refactor their code. 
 Some of the acceptable alternatives are:
 1) Make post/pre increments return void. This avoid those 
 troubles. I think Go language has chosen this. This is my 
 preferred solution.
 2) Turn that code into a syntax error for some other cause.
 3) Design the language so post/pre increments give a defined 
 effect on all D compilers on all CPUs. Walter since lot of time 
 says this is planned for D. This leads to deterministic 
 programs, but sometimes they are hard to understand and hard to 
 translate (port) to other languages any way. Translating code 
 to other languages is not irrelevant because D must be designed 
 to make it easy to understand the semantics of the code.

 Bye,
 bearophile


If people can't be bothered to understand what they write, they 
can go hang.

"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:

On Monday, June 04, 2012 23:22:26 Bernard Helyer wrote:
 On Monday, 4 June 2012 at 20:44:42 UTC, bearophile wrote:
 Bernard Helyer:
 If you find yourself using postfix increment/decrement
 operators in the same function call in multiple arguments,
 slap yourself firmly in the face and refactor that code.


 I think this is not acceptable, you can't rely on that, future
 D programers will not slap themselves and refactor their code.
 Some of the acceptable alternatives are:
 1) Make post/pre increments return void. This avoid those
 troubles. I think Go language has chosen this. This is my
 preferred solution.
 2) Turn that code into a syntax error for some other cause.
 3) Design the language so post/pre increments give a defined
 effect on all D compilers on all CPUs. Walter since lot of time
 says this is planned for D. This leads to deterministic
 programs, but sometimes they are hard to understand and hard to
 translate (port) to other languages any way. Translating code
 to other languages is not irrelevant because D must be designed
 to make it easy to understand the semantics of the code.
 
 Bye,
 bearophile


 If people can't be bothered to understand what they write, they
 can go hang.


I think that Bernard is being a bit harsh, but in essence, I agree. Since the 
evaluation order of arguments is undefined, programmers should be aware of that 
and code accordingly. If they don't bother to learn, then they're going to get 
bitten, and that's life.

Now, Walter _has_ expressed interest in changing it so that the order of 
evaluation for function arguments is fully defined as being left-to-right, 
which solves the issue. I'd still council against getting into the habit of 
writing code which relies on the order of evaluation for the arguments to a 
function, since it's so common for other languages not to define it (so that 
the compiler can better optimize the calls), and so getting into the habit of 
writing code which _does_ depend on the order of evalution for function 
arguments will cause you to write bad code you when you work in most other
programming languages.

As for treating pre or post-increment operators specially in some manner, that 
doesn't make sense. The problem is far more general than that. If we're going 
to change anything, it would be to make it so that the language itself defines 
the order of evaluation of function arguments as being left-to-right.

- Jonathan M Davis

"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

Jonathan M Davis:

 If they don't bother to learn, then they're going to get 
 bitten, and that's life.


A modern language must try to avoid common programmer mistakes, 
where possible (like in this case).


 As for treating pre or post-increment operators specially in 
 some manner, that
 doesn't make sense. The problem is far more general than that. 
 If we're going
 to change anything, it would be to make it so that the language 
 itself defines
 the order of evaluation of function arguments as being 
 left-to-right.


Probably I have expressed myself badly there, sorry. I'd like to 
see function calls fixed as Walter has stated.
And regarding pre/post de/increment operators, I find them handy, 
but I have seen _so much_ C/C++ code that abuses them that maybe 
I'd like them to return void, as in Go.

Bye,
bearophile

"Xinok" <xinok live.com> writes:

On Monday, 4 June 2012 at 20:44:42 UTC, bearophile wrote:
 1) Make post/pre increments return void. This avoid those 
 troubles. I think Go language has chosen this. This is my 
 preferred solution.


language? For me anyways, the whole point of these operators is 
to use them in expressions. Otherwise, why not simply write 
(i+=1)?

Kevin Cox <kevincox.ca gmail.com> writes:

--000e0ce0252614c80b04c1af6a05
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Jun 4, 2012 8:43 PM, "Xinok" <xinok live.com> wrote:
 I wonder in that case, is it even worth including in the language? For me


Otherwise, why not simply write (i+=1)?

For pointers they are useful because they go up in units not bytes
(although addition often does too).

--000e0ce0252614c80b04c1af6a05
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

<p><br>
On Jun 4, 2012 8:43 PM, &quot;Xinok&quot; &lt;<a
href="mailto:xinok live.com">xinok live.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I wonder in that case, is it even worth including in the language? For me
anyways, the whole point of these operators is to use them in expressions.
Otherwise, why not simply write (i+=1)?</p>
<p>For pointers they are useful because they go up in units not bytes (although
addition often does too).<br>
</p>

--000e0ce0252614c80b04c1af6a05--

Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:

On 06/04/2012 08:36 PM, Xinok wrote:
 The increment and decrement operators are highly dependent on operator
 precedence and associativity. If the actions are performed in a
 different order than the developer presumed, it could cause unexpected
 behavior.

 I had a simple idea to change the behavior of this operator. It works
 for the postfix operators but not prefix. Take the following code:

 size_t i = 5;
 writeln(i--, i--, i--);

 As of now, this writes "543". With my idea, instead it would write,
 "555". Under the hood, the compiler would rewrite the code as:

 size_t i = 5;
 writeln(i, i, i);
 --i;
 --i;
 --i;

 It decrements the variable after the current statement. While not the
 norm, this behavior is at least predictable. For non-static variables,
 such as array elements, the compiler could store a temporary reference
 to the variable so it can decrement it afterwards.

 I'm not actually proposing we actually make this change. I simply
 thought it was a nifty idea worth sharing.


The behaviour the language requires is that the function call executes 
as if the parameters were evaluated from left to right. This is exactly 
the behaviour you observe. What is the problem you want to fix?

Mikael Lindsten <mikael lindsten.net> writes:

--20cf306f7202de1fde04c1b55c91
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

2012/6/5 Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com>
 I think that Bernard is being a bit harsh, but in essence, I agree. Since
 the
 evaluation order of arguments is undefined, programmers should be aware of
 that
 and code accordingly. If they don't bother to learn, then they're going to
 get
 bitten, and that's life.

 Now, Walter _has_ expressed interest in changing it so that the order of
 evaluation for function arguments is fully defined as being left-to-right,
 which solves the issue. I'd still council against getting into the habit of
 writing code which relies on the order of evaluation for the arguments to a
 function, since it's so common for other languages not to define it (so
 that
 the compiler can better optimize the calls), and so getting into the habit
 of
 writing code which _does_ depend on the order of evalution for function
 arguments will cause you to write bad code you when you work in most other
 programming languages.

 As for treating pre or post-increment operators specially in some manner,
 that
 doesn't make sense. The problem is far more general than that. If we're
 going
 to change anything, it would be to make it so that the language itself
 defines
 the order of evaluation of function arguments as being left-to-right.

 - Jonathan M Davis


Agree completely!

--20cf306f7202de1fde04c1b55c91
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div class=3D"gmail_quote">2012/6/5 Jonathan M Davis <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;=
<a href=3D"mailto:jmdavisProg gmx.com" target=3D"_blank">jmdavisProg gmx.co=
m</a>&gt;</span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8e=
x;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">
<br>
</div></div>I think that Bernard is being a bit harsh, but in essence, I ag=
ree. Since the<br>
evaluation order of arguments is undefined, programmers should be aware of =
that<br>
and code accordingly. If they don&#39;t bother to learn, then they&#39;re g=
oing to get<br>
bitten, and that&#39;s life.<br>
<br>
Now, Walter _has_ expressed interest in changing it so that the order of<br=


br>
which solves the issue. I&#39;d still council against getting into the habi=
t of<br>
writing code which relies on the order of evaluation for the arguments to a=
<br>
function, since it&#39;s so common for other languages not to define it (so=
 that<br>
the compiler can better optimize the calls), and so getting into the habit =
of<br>
writing code which _does_ depend on the order of evalution for function<br>
arguments will cause you to write bad code you when you work in most other<=
br>
programming languages.<br>
<br>
As for treating pre or post-increment operators specially in some manner, t=
hat<br>
doesn&#39;t make sense. The problem is far more general than that. If we&#3=
9;re going<br>
to change anything, it would be to make it so that the language itself defi=
nes<br>
the order of evaluation of function arguments as being left-to-right.<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
- Jonathan M Davis<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><div>Agree completely!</div><div><br><=
/div>

--20cf306f7202de1fde04c1b55c91--

Dejan Lekic <dejan.lekic gmail.com> writes:

On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 10:23:18 +0200, Mikael Lindsten wrote:

 2012/6/5 Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com>
 I think that Bernard is being a bit harsh, but in essence, I agree.
 Since the
 evaluation order of arguments is undefined, programmers should be aware
 of that
 and code accordingly. If they don't bother to learn, then they're going
 to get
 bitten, and that's life.

 Now, Walter _has_ expressed interest in changing it so that the order
 of evaluation for function arguments is fully defined as being
 left-to-right, which solves the issue. I'd still council against
 getting into the habit of writing code which relies on the order of
 evaluation for the arguments to a function, since it's so common for
 other languages not to define it (so that
 the compiler can better optimize the calls), and so getting into the
 habit of
 writing code which _does_ depend on the order of evalution for function
 arguments will cause you to write bad code you when you work in most
 other programming languages.

 As for treating pre or post-increment operators specially in some
 manner, that
 doesn't make sense. The problem is far more general than that. If we're
 going
 to change anything, it would be to make it so that the language itself
 defines
 the order of evaluation of function arguments as being left-to-right.

 - Jonathan M Davis


 <div class="gmail_quote">2012/6/5 Jonathan M Davis <span
 dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:jmdavisProg gmx.com"
 target="_blank">jmdavisProg gmx.com</a>&gt;</span><blockquote
 class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
 solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
 <br>
 </div></div>I think that Bernard is being a bit harsh, but in essence, I
 agree. Since the<br> evaluation order of arguments is undefined,
 programmers should be aware of that<br> and code accordingly. If they
 don&#39;t bother to learn, then they&#39;re going to get<br> bitten, and
 that&#39;s life.<br>
 <br>
 Now, Walter _has_ expressed interest in changing it so that the order
 of<br> evaluation for function arguments is fully defined as being
 left-to-right,<br> which solves the issue. I&#39;d still council against
 getting into the habit of<br> writing code which relies on the order of
 evaluation for the arguments to a<br> function, since it&#39;s so common
 for other languages not to define it (so that<br> the compiler can
 better optimize the calls), and so getting into the habit of<br> writing
 code which _does_ depend on the order of evalution for function<br>
 arguments will cause you to write bad code you when you work in most
 other<br> programming languages.<br>
 <br>
 As for treating pre or post-increment operators specially in some
 manner, that<br> doesn&#39;t make sense. The problem is far more general
 than that. If we&#39;re going<br> to change anything, it would be to
 make it so that the language itself defines<br> the order of evaluation
 of function arguments as being left-to-right.<br> <span
 class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br> - Jonathan M Davis<br>
 </font></span></blockquote></div><br><div>Agree
 completely!</div><div><br></div>



Ah noes, my eyes... HTML code... :-(


-- 
Dejan Lekic
  mailto:dejan.lekic(a)gmail.com
  http://dejan.lekic.org 

Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> writes:

On 4 June 2012 23:37, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote:
 On Monday, June 04, 2012 23:22:26 Bernard Helyer wrote:
 On Monday, 4 June 2012 at 20:44:42 UTC, bearophile wrote:
 Bernard Helyer:
 If you find yourself using postfix increment/decrement
 operators in the same function call in multiple arguments,
 slap yourself firmly in the face and refactor that code.


 I think this is not acceptable, you can't rely on that, future
 D programers will not slap themselves and refactor their code.
 Some of the acceptable alternatives are:
 1) Make post/pre increments return void. This avoid those
 troubles. I think Go language has chosen this. This is my
 preferred solution.
 2) Turn that code into a syntax error for some other cause.
 3) Design the language so post/pre increments give a defined
 effect on all D compilers on all CPUs. Walter since lot of time
 says this is planned for D. This leads to deterministic
 programs, but sometimes they are hard to understand and hard to
 translate (port) to other languages any way. Translating code
 to other languages is not irrelevant because D must be designed
 to make it easy to understand the semantics of the code.

 Bye,
 bearophile


 If people can't be bothered to understand what they write, they
 can go hang.


 I think that Bernard is being a bit harsh, but in essence, I agree. Since the
 evaluation order of arguments is undefined, programmers should be aware of that
 and code accordingly. If they don't bother to learn, then they're going to get
 bitten, and that's life.

 Now, Walter _has_ expressed interest in changing it so that the order of
 evaluation for function arguments is fully defined as being left-to-right,
 which solves the issue. I'd still council against getting into the habit of
 writing code which relies on the order of evaluation for the arguments to a
 function, since it's so common for other languages not to define it (so that
 the compiler can better optimize the calls), and so getting into the habit of
 writing code which _does_ depend on the order of evalution for function
 arguments will cause you to write bad code you when you work in most other
 programming languages.

 As for treating pre or post-increment operators specially in some manner, that
 doesn't make sense. The problem is far more general than that. If we're going
 to change anything, it would be to make it so that the language itself defines
 the order of evaluation of function arguments as being left-to-right.


"the language itself defines the order of evaluation of function
arguments as being left-to-right" ... if the calling convention
defines it.

For extern(D) the way you can expect order of evaluation to work in
gdc generated code - for instance - is that each argument is evaluated
from left to right, and if it has any side effects, then it is stored
into a temporary prior to calling the function.

For extern(C) the order of evaluation is actually defined by the
underlying architecture.  For example, i386 evaluates right-to-left,
however other architectures (ie: ARM) perform left-to-right evaluation
of function arguments.  Incidentally, I know there are a few tests in
the testsuite that depend on the i386 behaviour, but that is something
else to worry about.


Regards
-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';