Hi, On Thu, 26 Nov 2015, David Brown wrote:
> That is all true - but if you have to pick an order that makes sense to > users, especially of functions that are not varargs (i.e., most > functions), then left-to-right is the only logical, natural order - at > least for those of use who use left-to-right languages. Exactly, what's feeling humanly natural here is cultural (and I'd argue there's a fairly large percentage of the population who are neither ltr not rtl, but rather top-to-bottom), and therefore ... > really going to be a big issue? One should not limit the language just > because of a tiny efficiency issue with rarely-used cases. ... this is the only objectively measurable dimension, and hence _that_ is exactly how the language should be limited in such cases, if it must be limited at all (which seems indeed a bit dubious after 30 years as the proposal mentions itself) [1]. Ciao, Michael. [1] I'm trying (but failing) to not even start the argument that if the goal is to make C++ "make more sense to users" that this already failed in '98, got worse with later revisions, and fixating evaluation order is helping just so slightly (if at all), that it all seems a bit ridiculous to me.
