More magical AA semantics

[deadalnix]

On Friday, 11 January 2013 at 10:16:28 UTC, Jens Mueller wrote:
> deadalnix wrote:
>> On Friday, 11 January 2013 at 08:55:55 UTC, Bernard Helyer 
>> wrote:
>> >I completely agree. Doesn't the spec say that relying on
>> >the order of assignment evaluation is undefined?
>> 
>> After a long discussion with Andrei, it seems that it is left 
>> to
>> right.
>
> Then the spec should be fixed.
>
> unittest
> {
> 	int a = 0;
> 	++a = a;
> 	assert(a == 1);
> }
>

++a isn't supposed to be an lvalue (it is not assignable).

> Don't know though whether you find it surprising that the above 
> code
> passes? But whether it is left to right or right to left does 
> not matter
> that much. At least it's defined and you can internalize it.
> The more I think about the more sense it makes to have it left 
> to right.
>

It shouldn't pass as the entry has never been assigned when 
computing the value.