On Friday, 14 February 2014 at 20:26:02 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:23:50 -0500, Jeremy DeHaan
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Friday, 14 February 2014 at 20:11:19 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:28:33 -0500, Frustrated
<[email protected]> wrote:
Is that not just C+++? When the gc and allocation gets fixed
we'll end up with C++++?
No, C+++ isn't valid, and I don't know about C++++, but I'm
suspecting no.
The next generation would be C+=2
:P
-Steve
(++C)++
It looks silly, but it's valid in D!
Maybe valid, but what message is it sending?! C+=2 is much more
efficient ;)
-Steve
My original idea was to be (C++)++, which makes sense
conceptually, but wasn't valid code. :P
