Re: undefined compound chaining behavior

[Hossein Sajjadi]

> Well, an assignment or any other expression that has side effects is
> not referentially transparent, that's the way it is. Octave is not a
> functional language.
>

Yes, Octave is not a functional programming language, but as an
imperative language it is necessary to guarantee the order of
evaluation or define sequence point as c++ do. Also as a language
specially designed for mathematical computations such a behavior is no
acceptable.
Simply changing the manual and notice the user about behavior of
chaining without any theroretical backend(order of evaluation or
sequence point) does not resolve the issue.

> There are rules, as I think it's been made clear here. It also seems
> clear from the responses you have gotten that many others find the
> current behavior more correct, so I think you are in the minority.

It seems that I should do some sort of diplomacy or negotiation or
lobbying to gather more votes to prove my assertion. :)) Besides, I
think "more correct" is not accptable when we talk about such a
problem. This assertion is correct or is not correct.

Thanks,

Hossein