Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!xanth!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sun!chaya!bitbug From: bitbug@chaya.sun.com (James Buster) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: ++ bug ? Message-ID: <126542@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> Date: 20 Oct 89 00:34:40 GMT References: <6590302@hplsla.HP.COM> Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM Reply-To: bitbug (James Buster) Followup-To: comp.lang.c++ Organization: Sun Microsystems Federal, Inc. Lines: 27 In article <6590302@hplsla.HP.COM> jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock) writes: >It is well documented almost everywhere that when overloading pre/post inc/dec >that C++ does not distinguish between pre and post. Hence the discussion >on @++ vs ++@ In "The C++ Programming Language, by Bjarne Stroustrup", on page 171, it says: "When the operators ++ and -- are overloaded, it is not possible to distinguish prefix application from postfix application" I interpreted this to mean that the *member function* cannot distinguish between prefix and postfix application, but that the compiler will ensure that the member function will be called at the appropriate time (vis' a vis' prefix or postfix application). I believe that this is the most reasonable thing to do. -------------------------------------------- James Buster Mad Hacker Extraordinaire bitbug@lonewolf.ebay.sun.com bitbug%lonewolf@sun.com sun.com!lonewolf!bitbug -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- James Buster Mad Hacker Extraordinaire bitbug@lonewolf.ebay.sun.com