Regarding this question
What are the evaluation order guarantees introduced by C++17?
With this specification
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0145r3.pdf
And this text from the specification
Furthermore, we suggest the following additional rule: the order of evaluation of an expression involving an overloaded operator is determined by the order associated with the corresponding built-in operator, not the rules for function calls.
Does this mean that these two expressions are no longer equivalent?
a << b;
operator<<(a, b);
As the second one looks like a function call, hence there is no guaranteed evaluation order in the parameters?
"As the second one looks like a function call, hence there is no guaranteed evaluation order in the parameters?"
Indeed. [expr.call]/5 contains an example specifically covering the difference between the two cases covered in your question [emphasis mine]:
The postfix-expression is sequenced before each expression in the expression-list and any default argument. The initialization of a parameter, including every associated value computation and side effect, is indeterminately sequenced with respect to that of any other parameter.
...
Note: If an operator function is invoked using operator notation, argument evaluation is sequenced as specified for the built-in operator; see [over.match.oper]. [ Example:
struct S { S(int); }; int operator<<(S, int); int i, j; int x = S(i=1) << (i=2); int y = operator<<(S(j=1), j=2);
After performing the initializations, the value of
i
is2
(see [expr.shift]), but it is unspecified whether the value ofj
is1
or2
.— end example ]
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With