On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 at 7:09pm, A.J.Mechelynck wrote: > Hari Krishna Dara wrote: > > On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 at 2:23pm, Bram Moolenaar wrote: > > > >> Yakov Lerner wrote: > >> > >>> On 9/3/06, Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>>>> I still miss pre and post increment and decrement operators (avoids a > >>>>> separate :let command by itself), > >>>> You mean, as in: > >>>> > >>>> :let linenr = a++ > >>>> > >>>> I don't know how difficult this is to implement, and if there are any > >>>> conflicts in the syntax. > >>> And then probably > >>> :let linenr ++ > >>> , too ? > >> That looks weird. You can do it already with: > >> > >> :let linenr += 1 > > > > Right, I am not talking about this case, but inside expressions, like > > in: > > > > return val++; > > > > instead of saying: > > > > let oldval = val > > let val += 1 > > return oldval > > > > or in: > > > > let ar[i] = ar[i++] > > > > Expressions with side-effects (or value-returning assignments, depending > on point of view) are a head-breaker in C. I hate them. Too often I > won't see the error when some dumbass (me included) writes a++ where ++a > should have been, or vice-versa.
I think your opinions are subjective. I personally never got confused by the use of these operators and find them to have very clean expression. > > let val += 1 > return (val - 1) > > is much clearer for someone who doesn't use C day-in day-out. At least I find this more confusing than using a post-increment operator. You are expressing a logic that is distributed in multiple lines, and to me that definitely is less expressive than simply returning val++. Again, this is very subjective, and so I am not surprised that you find it differently. > Vim doesn't allow "if (x = y)" which is perfectly legal in C, where it > means "set x equal to y, and return TRUE if the value is nonzero" and > not as a novice would expect, "return TRUE if x equals y". I agree that this constuct is heavily subject to errors and most post-C/C++ languages boast generating a compiler error to prevent unexpected bugs, but I didn't get what your point here is w.r.t. to the subject of this thread. > > Best regards, > Tony. -- Thanks, Hari __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
