Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rphroy!caen!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ysub!psuvm!blekul11!ghgaqz4
From: GHGAQZ4@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: Compiler code (was a flame fest) (now a lesser flame fest)
Message-ID: <91112.093750GHGAQZ4@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be>
Date: 22 Apr 91 09:35:50 GMT
References: <1991Apr17.180342.25312@engin.umich.edu>
 <1991Apr18.122054.13695@athena.mit.edu>
 <1991Apr18.212939.3461@kessner.denver.co.us>
 <1991Apr19.032052.26387@engin.umich.edu>
Organization: K.U.Leuven - Academic Computing Center
Lines: 18

>  Nope.  ++ and -- are unary operators of the highest precedence.  The only
>difference between ++x and x++ is the value they assume, the order of eval-
>uation follows standard C precedence..

I think you are wrong. Look at the following results :
I have tried this with our mainframe compiler :
   int n=4;

   (n--)*(n++)   ->   12
   (n++)*(n--)   ->   20
   (--n)*(++n)   ->   16
   (++n)*(--n)   ->   16
   (--n)*(n++)   ->   12
   (++n)*(n--)   ->   20
   (n--)*(++n)   ->   16
   (n++)*(--n)   ->   16

          Jorrit Tyberghein