Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!samsung!usc!rpi!crdgw1!camelback!volpe
From: volpe@camelback.crd.ge.com (Christopher R Volpe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: difference between c++; and ++c;
Message-ID: <18391@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Date: 10 Apr 91 12:01:02 GMT
References: <1991Apr08.161444.10025@cs.ruu.nl> <2880223615@ARTEMIS.cam.nist.gov>
Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com
Reply-To: volpe@camelback.crd.ge.com (Christopher R Volpe)
Lines: 20

In article <2880223615@ARTEMIS.cam.nist.gov>, miller@GEM.cam.nist.gov
(Bruce R. Miller) writes:
|>
|>In article <1991Apr08.161444.10025@cs.ruu.nl>, Ernst de Ridder writes: 
|>> I once read (I'm not sure where, but I believe it was in the C++
|>> programming language) that some C-programmers argue that ++c is neater
|>> than c++.  (In situations where the side-effect doesn't matter).  So
|>			    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>If the side-effect doesn't matter, I prefer to use this:
|>
|>(ie. whitespace).  Most compilers do a good job of optimizing it.  :>>  

If the side effect doesn't matter and the value *does* matter, you're
better off using "c + 1". Granted, it doesn't optimize into nothing quite
as easily, but it does produce more accurate results. :-) :-)
               
==================
Chris Volpe
G.E. Corporate R&D
volpecr@crd.ge.com