Timeline for Why do we have postfix increment?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 3, 2011 at 10:03 | history | migrated | from stackoverflow.com (revisions) | ||
| Feb 2, 2011 at 15:14 | comment | added | Bernd Jendrissek | Closures! How ridiculous. Just give me a tape! Seriously, what I meant is that I don't think /needing/ a feature should be the primary decision criterion (unless you want to design, say, lisp). IME I use (nay, need) the postfix operators almost exclusively, and only rarely need the prefix one instead. | |
| Feb 2, 2011 at 2:40 | comment | added | Brian M. Hunt | @Bernd: Ha! Imagine closures! Closures! Scandalous! lol | |
| Feb 1, 2011 at 19:37 | comment | added | Bernd Jendrissek | "Do we need the postfix operator anymore? Likely not." - I can't help thinking of Turing machines here. Have we ever needed automatic variables, the for statement, heck, even while (we have goto, after all)? | |
| Feb 1, 2011 at 6:45 | comment | added | the Tin Man | +1 "some people find while (*dst++ = *src++); to simply be a more beautiful solution". Definitely. People who don't understand assembly language don't really understand how elegant C can be, but that particular code statement is a shining star. | |
| Feb 1, 2011 at 4:04 | history | answered | Brian M. Hunt | CC BY-SA 2.5 |