When an aggregate is initialized by an initializer list, as speciﬁed in 8.5.4, the elements of the initializer list
are taken as initializers for the members of the aggregate, in increasing subscript or member order. Each
member is copy-initialized from the corresponding initializer-clause.
Within the initializer-list of a braced-init-list, the initializer-clauses, including any that result from pack
expansions (14.5.3), are evaluated in the order in which they appear. That is, every value computation and
side eﬀect associated with a given initializer-clause is sequenced before every value computation and side
eﬀect associated with any initializer-clause that follows it in the comma-separated list of the initializer-list.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-discussio...@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-dis...@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-discussion/.
The question, I believe, is whether the initialization of s.i is sequenced before the evaluation of the second initializer.
Am 27.02.2015 23:42 schrieb "Richard Smith" <ric...@metafoo.co.uk>:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:39 PM, David Rodríguez Ibeas <dib...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> The question, I believe, is whether the initialization of s.i is sequenced before the evaluation of the second initializer.
> We have:
> [intro.execution]p10: "A full-expression is an expression that is not a subexpression of another expression. [...] If a language construct is defined to produce an implicit call of a function, a use of the language construct is considered to be an expression for the purposes of this definition."
> Since a braced-init-list is not an expression, and in this case it does not result in a function call, 5 and s.i are separate full-expressions. Then:
> [intro.execution]p14: "Every value computation and side effect associated with a full-expression is sequenced before every value computation and side effect associated with the next full-expression to be evaluated."
> So the only question is, is the side-effect of initializing s.i "associated with" the evaluation of the full-expression "5"? I think the only reasonable assumption is that it is: if 5 were initializing a member of class type, the constructor call would obviously be part of the full-expression by the definition in [intro.execution]p10, so it is natural to assume that the same is true for scalar types.
I agree. See my answer in the other thread.