Re^10: Order of evaluation/interpolation of references (op order)

Again. Nothing in your post bears any relation upon what I posted. (Your doing this a lot lately?)

You might just as well have posted: "The french dog lick mustard blue sky cheese". It would make just as much sense.

Read the damn post! Then reply in whole, complete, relevant, joined up sentences.

And I hid nothing.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

The start of some sanity?

Comment on Re^10: Order of evaluation/interpolation of references (op order)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^11: Order of evaluation/interpolation of references (op order) by Anonymous Monk on Mar 09, 2012 at 02:30 UTC
Wow. I saw ikegamis post 3 times, and it looked radically different all three times. Current `<blockquote><p><i>Sorry, but that makes no sense in relation to what I + posted.</i></blockquote> <p>That's why I asked what you considered to be a bug. My guess: The l +ack of copying by operators causes other operators to behave differen +tly than you'd expect. <p>If you deliberately hide information, you only have yourself to bla +me for any ensuing confusion` [download] Before that `<blockquote><p><i>Sorry, but that makes no sense in relation to what I + posted.</i></blockquote> <p>Then what you posted incorrectly assumes lvalue results only affect + concatenation.` [download] Before that it was something equally grumpy about being confused, but not resembling the above two sentiments in any other way.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^11: Order of evaluation/interpolation of references (op order) by ikegami (Patriarch) on Mar 09, 2012 at 02:36 UTC
And I hid nothing. You didn't answer my questions. Furthermore, the post has nothing to do with the one to which it is a reply, and you provided no explanation to that effect whatsoever. It has been answered, with a properly updated title.	[reply]
Re^12: Order of evaluation/interpolation of references (op order) by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Mar 09, 2012 at 02:44 UTC
You didn't answer my questions. I didn't answer your questions because they did not relate to anything I posted. I'm fed up to the back teeth of following you down blind alleys.	[reply]
Re^13: Order of evaluation/interpolation of references (op order) by ikegami (Patriarch) on Mar 09, 2012 at 02:55 UTC
LOL! your post was about some unspecified optimision and fixing some unspecified bug, yet asking which optimisation and which bug "does not relate to anything you posted"?	[reply]