Alexey Trofimenko writes:
> if we really about to lose C-style comma, would we have something new
> instead?
>
> new C<,>,( as I've been told here by wise ones), doesn't guarantee order
> in which its operands will be evaluated, and even doesn't guarantee that
> they won't be optimised away before
On Wed, 2004-06-30 at 18:18, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
> P.P.S. do we have a way to imply void context on function inside
> expression, something like C, C<+>, C<~>, C do?
Sort of a 'meh' operator?
I wonder (idly) in which circumstances the context determinator couldn't
determinate void context
if we really about to lose C-style comma, would we have something new
instead?
new C<,>,( as I've been told here by wise ones), doesn't guarantee order
in which its operands will be evaluated, and even doesn't guarantee that
they won't be optimised away before evaluating, if all expression is in
