Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!gatech!hubcap!beede
From: beede@hubcap.UUCP (Mike Beede)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Style [++i vs i++]
Message-ID: <246@hubcap.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 30-Jun-87 19:50:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: hubcap.246
Posted: Tue Jun 30 19:50:24 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 1-Jul-87 07:14:36 EDT
References: <17310@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Organization: Clemson University, Clemson, SC
Lines: 23

in article <17310@amdcad.AMD.COM>, tim@amdcad.AMD.COM (Tim Olson) says:
>
> [ question: use ++i or i++ when only side-effect is desired ]
> 
> Personally, the use of post-increment operators here drives me crazy.  They
> have the added meaning of returning the value of the incremented lvalue
> before the increment.  If this is just thrown away, why do it?
                         ^-------------------------------------^
Just an observation: all expressions in C return a value.  Thus, every
``naked'' expression involves throwing a value away (++i; AND i++;).  There
is no reason a compiler needs to generate code differently for i++; and
++i; if that is the entire expression (and statement).

Maybe some people familiar with the internals of C compilers could comment
on this--it may be easier to generate different code for these cases.

BTW--I use ``i++''.  For me that seems more natural--maybe from using HP
calculators for many years (1/2 ;-> ).
-- 
Mike Beede                      UUCP: . . . !gatech!hubcap!beede
Computer Science Dept.          ARPA: BEEDE@TECNET-CLEMSON.ARPA
Clemson University              INET: beede@hubcap.clemson.edu
Clemson SC 29631-1906           PH: (803)656-{2845,3444}