Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="James Kuyper, post: 5113175"] On 08/26/2013 03:18 PM, Ike Naar wrote: .... Of course not - the only argument ever presented for Yoda Conditions is protection against the possibility of mistyping = instead of ==. Such protection is only needed when one of the operands is an lvalue; such protection is only possible if the other is not an lvalue. It is neither needed nor possible in this case. The relevant property is lvalueness. If you're writing code so obfuscated that it leaves you uncertain which expressions are lvalues, you've got bigger problems than can be dealt with by using Yoda conditions. Nothing that occurs at runtime can change whether or not a given expression is an lvalue. Do you know of any other commutative operators for which a common typo converts them into a different operator for which one order is a constraint violation, and the other is perfectly legal code that does something quite different from what it would have done without the typo? The other operator is, of course, necessarily not commutative. There might be some other such pair of operators - I don't claim any certainty about that. However, but I think the ==/= typo is overwhelmingly the most common such pair. [/QUOTE]