Scott Robison wrote: > --===============0702352335== > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044286d854da5a05042007d5 > > --f46d044286d854da5a05042007d5 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Sep 28, 2014 12:49 AM, "Stephan Beal" <sgb...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >> Sidenote: i'm curious why most people prefer postscript addition, when > prefix is "never slower and sometimes faster." (Not that it matters one > iota for a case like this, it just seems to be very deeply embedded in most > people i know.) > > I think most people (I am not most people in this case) prefer / use > postfix increment & decrement because it is what they learned first and how > most examples seem to be written. I prefer to use prefix operators (barring > the need for postfix side effects) just because they read more naturally in > my native language. I think it makes more sense when thinking "increment i" > to see "++i". The fact that it is potentially more efficient (though > probably not in practice) is just a bonus.
I do it because it's what's most commonly used in C. For C, any considerations of efficiency are likely to be negligible, but if you're writing in C++, the cost of constructing and destructing a user-defined object *may* mean that using the prefix form has a non-negligible efficiency advantage over the postfix form. So, for C++, it may make sense to get into to habit of using the prefix form, unless there is a specific reason for using the postfix form. -- Will _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
