C++ Core Guidelines: Rules for Expressions


Today's post is about expressions. You should avoid complicated expressions, you should know the precedence rules for arithmetic or logical expressions, and you should know the order of evaluation of expressions. Having the wrong precedence rules for expressions in mind or assuming an evaluation order for expressions which is just wrong or not guaranteed are the main reasons for undefined behaviour. I know that's a lot to digest. Let's start.


Polynomial expansion

Here are the four rules for today.

The rules for the precedence and the evaluation are not so easy as it sounds. They even change with C++17; therefore, we should start simple.

ES.40: Avoid complicated expressions

What does complicated mean? Here is the original example of the guidelines:


// bad: assignment hidden in subexpression                      (1)
while ((c = getc()) != -1)

// bad: two non-local variables assigned in a sub-expressions   (1)
while ((cin >> c1, cin >> c2), c1 == c2)

// better, but possibly still too complicated                   (1)
for (char c1, c2; cin >> c1 >> c2 && c1 == c2;)

// OK: if i and j are not aliased                               (2)
int x = ++i + ++j;                 

// OK: if i != j and i != k                                     (2)
v[i] = v[j] + v[k];

// bad: multiple assignments "hidden" in subexpressions         (1)
x = a + (b = f()) + (c = g()) * 7;

// bad: relies on commonly misunderstood precedence rules       (1)
x = a & b + c * d && e ^ f == 7;

// bad: undefined behavior                                      (3)
x = x++ + x++ + ++x;


I added a few (numbers) to it. First, all expressions having a (1) are bad style and should not pass a code review. For example, do you know what is happening here: x = a & b + c * d && e ^ f == 7;. Of course, you have to look up the precedences of the operators. I will come to it in the next rule. The expressions (2) may be fine if the conditions hold. i and j must be disjunct and the indices i,j and i,k must be pairwise disjunct.

(3) is undefined behaviour, because it is not defined which x will be evaluated first. Why? The argument is that the final semicolon ";" is a sequence point and now we have the guarantee that all side effects from the previous evaluations in the sequence are complete.

With C++17, the rules for operator precedence changed: left-to-right for expressions except for right-to-left in assignments. I will write about it in ES.43.

ES.41: If in doubt about operator precedence, parenthesize

On one hand, the guidelines says: If you are in doubt about operator precedence, use parenthesis (1). On the other hand, they state: You should know enough not to need parentheses here (2):


const unsigned int flag = 2;
unsigned int a = flag;

if (a & flag != 0)  // bad: means a&(flag != 0)         (1)

if (a < 0 || a <= max) {  // good: quite obvious        (2)
    // ...


Okay. For an expert expression (1) may be obvious but for a beginner expression (2) may be a challenge. 

I have only two tips in mind according to the guidelines:

  1. If in doubt about precedence, use parentheses. Do not forget the beginners!
  2. Keep this precedence table from cppreference.com under your pillow.


I will right jump to the rules ES.43 and ES.44 and will write about rule ES.42 in my next post. With C++17, the order of evaluation of expressions changed.

ES.43: Avoid expressions with undefined order of evaluation

In C++14 the following expression has undefined behaviour. 

v[i] = ++i;   //  the result is undefined


This will not hold for C++17. With C++17 the order of evaluation of the last code snippet is right to left; therefore, the expression has well-defined behaviour.

Here are the additional guarantees we have with C++17:

  1. Postfix expressions are evaluated from left to right. This includes functions calls and member selection expressions.
  2. Assignment expressions are evaluated from right to left. This includes compound assignments.
  3. Operands to shift operators are evaluated from left to right. 

This was the wording of the original proposal. They also provided a few examples. Here are they:

a(b1, b2, b3)        // (1)
b @= a
a << b
a >> b


How should you read these examples? Quite simple. First, a will be evaluated, then b, then c, and then d.

Expression (1) is a bit tricky. With C++17 we have only the guarantee that the function is evaluated before its arguments but the order of the evaluation of the arguments is still unspecified.

I know the last sentence was not easy. Let's elaborate a little bit more.

ES.44: Don’t depend on order of evaluation of function arguments

In the last years,  I saw many errors because developers assumed that the order of the evaluation of function arguments is left to right. Wrong! You have no guarantees!

#include <iostream>

void func(int fir, int sec){
    std::cout << "(" << fir << "," << sec << ")" << std::endl;

int main(){
    int i = 0;
    func(i++, i++);


Here is my proof. The output from gcc and clang differs:

  • gcc:




  • clang


With C++17, this behaviour didn't change. The order of evaluation is unspecified. But at least, the order of the evaluation of the following expressions is specified with C++17.


f1()->m(f2());          // evaluation left to right  (1)
cout << f1() << f2();   // evaluation left to right  (2)

f1() = f(2);            // evaluation right to left  (3)


Here is the reason, why:

(1): Postfix expressions are evaluated from left to right. This includes functions calls and member selection expressions.

(2): Operands to shift operators are evaluated from left to right.

(3): Assignment expressions are evaluated from right to left.

Only to remind you. With C++14, the last three expressions have undefined behaviour.

What's next?

Admitted, this was a quite a challenging post but a challenge you have to overcome to become a good programmer. The main topic of my next post will be about cast operations.



Thanks a lot to my Patreon Supporters: Matt Braun, Roman Postanciuc, Tobias Zindl, Marko, G Prvulovic, Reinhold Dröge, Abernitzke, Frank Grimm, Sakib, Broeserl, António Pina, Sergey Agafyin, Андрей Бурмистров, Jake, GS, Lawton Shoemake, Animus24, Jozo Leko, John Breland, espkk, Wolfgang Gärtner, Louis St-Amour, Venkat Nandam, Jose Francisco, Douglas Tinkham, Kuchlong Kuchlong, Robert Blanch, Truels Wissneth, Kris Kafka, Mario Luoni, Neil Wang, Friedrich Huber, lennonli, Pramod Tikare Muralidhara, Peter Ware, Tobi Heideman, Daniel Hufschläger, Red Trip, Alexander Schwarz, Tornike Porchxidze, Alessandro Pezzato, and Evangelos Denaxas.


Thanks in particular to Jon Hess, Lakshman, Christian Wittenhorst, Sherhy Pyton, Dendi Suhubdy, Sudhakar Belagurusamy, and Richard Sargeant.

My special thanks to Embarcadero CBUIDER STUDIO FINAL ICONS 1024 Small



I'm happy to give online-seminars or face-to-face seminars world-wide. Please call me if you have any questions.

Bookable (Online)


Standard Seminars (English/German)

Here is a compilation of my standard seminars. These seminars are only meant to give you a first orientation.


Contact Me

Modernes C++,


My Newest E-Books

Course: Modern C++ Concurrency in Practice

Course: C++ Standard Library including C++14 & C++17

Course: Embedded Programming with Modern C++

Course: Generic Programming (Templates)

Course: C++ Fundamentals for Professionals

Subscribe to the newsletter (+ pdf bundle)

Blog archive

Source Code


Today 3173

Yesterday 8041

Week 18797

Month 78426

All 6306898

Currently are 265 guests and no members online

Kubik-Rubik Joomla! Extensions

Latest comments