On 06/15/2013 07:44 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> ...
>>
>> It seems natural to me that the stuff on the associated side would be
>> evaluated
>> before the stuff on the other, but that doesn't mean that it's the
>> best way to
>> go. It's just what I would have expected. So, if there's a good reason
>> to do
>> it differently, then I don't necessarily have a problem with that.
>>
>> - Jonathan M Davis
>>
>
> Well, I can't think of a _good_ reason now. :)
> ...

Correction: The conditional operator is right-associative, but evaluation necessarily proceeds LTR.

On 6/13/2013 11:14 PM, monarch_dodra wrote:
> 3) specifically unspecified
>    3.5) error when compiler sees ambiguity
>
> I'm personally in favor of 3, with some 3.5 as a warning.

Having a warning for that is "boy who cried wolf", as most functions have side effects and any expression like:

   f() + g()

would generate such a warning.

On Saturday, 15 June 2013 at 17:50:39 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/13/2013 11:14 PM, monarch_dodra wrote:
>> 3) specifically unspecified
>>   3.5) error when compiler sees ambiguity
>>
>> I'm personally in favor of 3, with some 3.5 as a warning.
>
> Having a warning for that is "boy who cried wolf", as most functions have side effects and any expression like:
>
>    f() + g()
>
> would generate such a warning.

Well, why would that throw a warning?

I didn't mean expressions that *could* raise an ambiguity, but when the compiler *catches* that there *will* be ambiguity.