stdio line-streaming revisited

[jcc7]

== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email)
(SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org)'s article
> jcc7 wrote:
> > == Quote from kris (foo at bar.com)'s article
> >> jcc7 wrote:
> >>> == Quote from kris (foo at bar.com)'s article
> >>>
> >>>> Frits van Bommel wrote:
> >>>> [snip]
> >>>>
> >>>>> What I'm trying to say here is basically this: you shouldn't rely on the
> >>>>> order of evaluation of parameters. Not even if one of them happens to be
> >>>>> used as 'this' for the method in question.
> >>>> Absolutely agree. Yet, without wishing to go off on a tangent, we're
> >>>> talking about call-chaining and not parameter evaluation-order. These
> >>>> are different things, and there was a painfully long thread on exactly
> >>>> this subject a year or two ago.
> >>>> Walter closed that one by stating call-chaining can only realistically
> >>>> evaluate from left to right (or something to that effect) and that's
> >>>> what D does.
> >>>> I'm sure JCC could locate that thread in a heartbeat ... don't know > how he
> >>> does that, but he sure is effective at it :)
> >>>
> >>> These days, I Usually just use Google and restrict it to www.digitalmars.com
(such
> >>> as the search box on the Digital Mars webpage does).
> >>>
> >>> I can't seem to track down this one though. My technique works best when I
> >>> actually remember the particular post or discussion (and it works really
well when
> >>> I remember that I myself posted in the discussion). And I don't really remember
> >>> this discussion.
> >>>
> >>> Do you happen to remember who Walter was replying to? That could be helpful. I
> >>> can't seem to find the right keywords to find the particular topic. I tried
> >>> various combinations of "newshound" (Walter's e-mail), "evaluation", "order",
> >>> "operator", "operation", "call", "chain", "return", "function", etc. Also,
> >>> sometimes it's helpful if I know when the discussion took place (Last month?
Last
> >>> year? 2005?). But this might just be a needle that remains hidden in the
haystack.
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps we can just talk Walter into putting this principle in the D
> > Specification. ;)
> >>> jcc7
> >> If I recall correctly, it started off as a complaint about the use
> >> of call-chaining in Mango, and resulted in someone leaving the NG
> >> for good (was his name manfred or something?)
> >
> > I think this is what you're looking for:
> >
http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=news.digitalmars.com&group=digitalmars.D&artnum=31264
> > or
> >
http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=31264
> The information is not there.
> > It's part of a much larger discussion:
> > http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/31069.html#N31264
> After a summary read I saw this:
> classRef.method1().method2().method3();
> In this case, indeed the three methods are evaluated in sequence. It
> would be, however, a mistake to infer from that that the code:
> Cout("Hello, ")(Cin.get);
> guaranteedly reads the console before having printed "Hello, ". It
> doesn't.
> Andrei

Well, I don't entired understand the issue, but I may have found the wrong
posting. Or maybe there is no posting where Walter addresses this issue.

jcc7