norskog (12/29/82)
#N:fortune:16200001:000:183 fortune!norskog Dec 28 16:56:00 1982 Any expression that relies on the order of evaluation should be caught and rejected by a compiler as a semantic error, since the programmer is obviously an idiot of the first water.
gh (12/29/82)
If relying on order of evaluation should be considered an error, then we'd better replace the ++x and x++ constructions with +x+, which means increment x, and use its old or new value (a random choice).
hamilton (01/01/83)
#R:fortune:16200001:uicsovax:21000001:000:106 uicsovax!hamilton Dec 31 21:33:00 1982 and while we're at it, why limit to expressions? make the order of execution of ALL statements random...