postincrement behaviour (differences between dmd and gdc)

[KennyTM~]

On Apr 20, 11 19:28, Daniel Gibson wrote:
>
> I think the DMD way is conformant with the D2 specification, see
> http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/operatoroverloading.html
> "e++ [is rewritten as] (auto t=e, ++e, t)", so x=x++; shouldn't change
> the value of x. (Yeah, this is for overloading, but the operator should
> behave the same for simple types).
>
> Of course x = x++; still makes no sense and should probably cause a
> warning or an error.

The D2 specification simply said "x = x++" is illegal. I don't think 
operatoroverloading.html applies to built-in types.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/expression.html
"It is an error to depend on order of evaluation when it is not 
specified. For example, the following are illegal:

     i = i++;
     c = a + (a = b);
     func(++i, ++i);

If the compiler can determine that the result of an expression is 
illegally dependent on the order of evaluation, it can issue an error 
(but is not required to). The ability to detect these kinds of errors is 
a quality of implementation issue."

and yes DMD should raise a compiler error.