On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 08:22:04 -0800, Palit, Nilanjan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Greg London [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 11:17 AM > > > > As for the triple-plus operator ;) > > I'd think perl would take x, do a "++" on it, > > get 2, and then do the "+1" on it to get three. > > But oh well. just won't use that in my code. > > No. In Perl (or C), "$x++" => use & then increment, whereas "++$x" => > increment & then use. Thus the expression will use the existing value of > x (1) to compute the value of y & then increment x itself. > And in C++. However there note that x++ implies an implicit cloning operation - you need the original value to increment and the returned value. If your constructor is heavyweight, it can be much better to write ++x, and avoid that clone (which cannot be optimized away by the compiler because there may be nontrivial semantic effects).
I consider it very ironical that C++ demonstrates that ++C is a better way to write that idiom. (Also I'd prefer a language that was improved before I used it...) Cheers, Ben _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
