[Issue 3378] [tdpl] ++x should be an lvalue

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3378 Andrei Alexandrescu changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unspecified |D2 --

[Issue 3378] [tdpl] ++x should be an lvalue

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3378 Walter Bright changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Issue 3378] [tdpl] ++x should be an lvalue

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3378 --- Comment #12 from Walter Bright 2010-03-06 01:40:56 PST --- changeset 409 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---

[Issue 3378] [tdpl] ++x should be an lvalue

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3378 --- Comment #11 from Walter Bright 2010-03-05 22:31:41 PST --- changeset 409 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---

[Issue 3378] [tdpl] ++x should be an lvalue

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3378 --- Comment #10 from Andrei Alexandrescu 2010-03-04 08:03:40 PST --- (In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #8) > > > > I can't rewrite bump because it's part of a large example illustrating ref. > > I don't wish to have a largeish

[Issue 3378] [tdpl] ++x should be an lvalue

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3378 --- Comment #9 from Steven Schveighoffer 2010-03-04 06:09:51 PST --- (In reply to comment #8) > > I can't rewrite bump because it's part of a large example illustrating ref. I don't wish to have a largeish debate about this, but this is not

[Issue 3378] [tdpl] ++x should be an lvalue

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3378 --- Comment #8 from Andrei Alexandrescu 2010-03-04 05:12:28 PST --- (In reply to comment #7) > testing: > > [ste...@steveslaptop ~]$ cat testit.c > int x; > int * foo() > { > return &(++x); > } > [ste...@steveslaptop ~]$ gcc -c testit.c >

[Issue 3378] [tdpl] ++x should be an lvalue

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3378 Steven Schveighoffer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||schvei...@yahoo.com --- Comment

[Issue 3378] [tdpl] ++x should be an lvalue

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3378 --- Comment #6 from Andrei Alexandrescu 2010-03-04 04:17:15 PST --- (In reply to comment #5) > C99 says this about ++x: > > ---6.5.3.1- > The operand of the prefix increment or decrement operator shall have qualified > or unqu

[Issue 3378] [tdpl] ++x should be an lvalue

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3378 --- Comment #5 from Walter Bright 2010-03-04 02:40:29 PST --- C99 says this about ++x: ---6.5.3.1- The operand of the prefix increment or decrement operator shall have qualified or unqualified real or pointer type and shall be

[Issue 3378] [tdpl] ++x should be an lvalue

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3378 --- Comment #4 from Andrei Alexandrescu 2009-11-22 17:32:49 PST --- (In reply to comment #3) > I guess, why? Why does ++x need to be an lvalue? 1. It's a departure from C. If we do make that departure, we need a good reason, which I don't kno

[Issue 3378] [tdpl] ++x should be an lvalue

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3378 Walter Bright changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com --- Comment #

[Issue 3378] [tdpl] ++x should be an lvalue

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3378 --- Comment #2 from Andrei Alexandrescu 2009-10-09 09:09:03 PDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > (In reply to comment #0) > > 1. The increment is rewritten as x += 1, but it shouldn't as it's a > > fundamentally different operation > > From the

[Issue 3378] [tdpl] ++x should be an lvalue

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3378 Don changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au --- Comment #1 from Don 2