Basically it’s up to the IEnumerator implementation – but for a List<T> it will always go in the natural order of the list, i.e. the same order as the indexer: list[0], list[1], list[2] etc. I don’t believe it’s explicitly documented – at least, I haven’t found such documentation – but I think you can treat … Read more
According to the precedence table, this is the expected behavior. The operator with higher precedence (/ and *) is evaluated before operator with lower precedence (unary -). So this: -100 / -100 * 10 is evaluated as: -(100 / -(100 * 10)) Note that this behavior is different from most programming languages where unary negation … Read more
Some common cases where the evaluation order has so far been unspecified, are specified and valid with C++17. Some undefined behaviour is now instead unspecified. i = 1; f(i++, i) was undefined, but it is now unspecified. Specifically, what is not specified is the order in which each argument to f is evaluated relative to … Read more
It’s NOT, AND, OR, from highest to lowest according to the documentation on Operator precedence Here is the complete precedence table, lowest precedence to highest. A row has the same precedence and groups from left to right 0. := 1. lambda 2. if – else 3. or 4. and 5. not x 6. in, not … Read more
Use: h.className = h.className + (h.className ? ‘ error’ : ‘error’) You want the operator to work for h.className. Better be specific about it. Of course, no harm should come from h.className += ‘ error’, but that’s another matter. Also, note that + has precedence over the ternary operator: JavaScript Operator Precedence
Because evaluation order is unspecified. You are seeing nu in main being evaluated to 0 before even meth1 is called. This is the problem with chaining. I advise not doing it. Just make a nice, simple, clear, easy-to-read, easy-to-understand program: int main() { c1 c; int nu = 0; c.meth1(&nu); c.meth2(nu); }
As @Rakete said in their excellent answer, this is tricky. I’d like to add on to that a little. The ternary operator must have the form: logical-or-expression ? expression : assignment-expression So we have the following mappings: someValue : logical-or-expression ++x, ++y : expression ??? is assignment-expression –x, –y or only –x? In fact it … Read more
The first two expressions both parse as tuples: (0, 0) == 0 (which is False), followed by 0 0, followed by 0 == (0, 0) (which is still False that way around). The expressions are split that way because of the relative precedence of the comma separator compared to the equality operator: Python sees a … Read more
I’d like to try to provide a somewhat more comprehensive answer after this was discussed with the C++ standards committee. In addition to being a member of the C++ committee, I’m also a developer on the LLVM and Clang compilers. Fundamentally, there is no way to use a barrier or some operation in the sequence … Read more
Python actually applies comparison operator chaining here. The expression is translated to (1 in [1, 0]) and ([1, 0] == True) which is obviously False. This also happens for expressions like a < b < c which translate to (a < b) and (b < c) (without evaluating b twice). See the Python language documentation … Read more