On 12/03/2015 9:12 p.m., Don wrote:
On Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 04:06:14 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
On 12/03/2015 1:50 p.m., Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 3/11/15 10:23 AM, welkam wrote:
Observation Nr. 1
People prefer to write var++ instead of ++var.
Observation Nr. 2
Because of observation Nr. 1 and other reasons compilers became good at
removing code that is not needed making var++ and ++var to produce the
same code if returned value is not used.
Observation Nr. 3
Because of observation Nr. 2 more people use var++ in place where they
really only need ++var.
Observation Nr. 4
Because of observation Nr. 3 people learning to program may mistakenly
learn that var++ is just incrementing. (I am included in that list)
Observation Nr. 5
Because of observation Nr. 4 people can write slower than necessary
code
for classes with overloaded operator or even get bugs.
Because of all this why not make only one increment/decrement operator
and have post increment/decrement to be called by template name,
because
it is a template?
template post_inc(T) {
auto tmp = T;
T++;
return tmp;
}
Observation Nr. 6
Somebody didn't Read The Fine Manual. Page 369:
=========
If the result of a++ is not needed, the rewrite is ++a, which is
subsequently rewritten to a.opUnary!"++"().
=========
Andrei
+1
Compiler should work for you. This is one of those things it can
rewrite to preference. During optimization.
It doesn't even rely on the optimizer. This happens in the front-end, in
the semantic pass.
In our implementation yes. But I'm emphasizing it doesn't have to.
