post-increment

What should be the output of echo ++$a + $a++ [duplicate]

孤人 提交于 2019-12-03 07:05:03
This question already has answers here : Why is $a + ++$a == 2? (13 answers) In the PHP manual, operator precedence section , there is this example: // mixing ++ and + produces undefined behavior $a = 1; echo ++$a + $a++; // may print 4 or 5 I understand the behavior is undefined because of the following reason: Since x + y = y + x the interpreter is free to evaluate x and y for addition in any order in order to optimize speed and/or memory. I concluded this after looking at the C code example in this article . My question is that the output of the above mentioned PHP code should be 4 no

What are the historical reasons C languages have pre-increments and post-increments?

半世苍凉 提交于 2019-12-03 06:16:41
(Note: I am not asking about the definitions of pre-increment vs. post-increment, or how they are used in C/C++. Therefore, I do not think this is a duplicate question.) Developers of C (Dennis Ritchie et al) created increment and decrement operators for very good reasons. What I don't understand is why they decided to create the distinction of pre- vs post- increments/decrements? My sense is that these operators were far more useful when C was being developed than today. Most C/C++ programmers use one or the other, and programmers from other languages find the distinction today bizarre and

How is the postfix and prefix increment operator evaluated in an expression? [duplicate]

百般思念 提交于 2019-12-02 23:38:56
问题 This question already has answers here : Undefined behavior and sequence points (5 answers) Closed 6 years ago . #include "stdafx.h" #include <iostream> #include <conio.h> using namespace std; int main() { int n = 5; cout<< n++ <<" "<< ++n << " "<< n++; _getch(); return 0; } When I run this program on Visual Studio the output is 7 8 5. I think it is compiler dependent. ( Correct me if I am wrong) But shouldn't it be either 7 7 5 or 5 7 7 ? 回答1: The sequence, in which the various n++ / ++n are

How is the postfix and prefix increment operator evaluated in an expression? [duplicate]

ぐ巨炮叔叔 提交于 2019-12-02 13:36:58
This question already has an answer here: Undefined behavior and sequence points 5 answers #include "stdafx.h" #include <iostream> #include <conio.h> using namespace std; int main() { int n = 5; cout<< n++ <<" "<< ++n << " "<< n++; _getch(); return 0; } When I run this program on Visual Studio the output is 7 8 5. I think it is compiler dependent. ( Correct me if I am wrong) But shouldn't it be either 7 7 5 or 5 7 7 ? The sequence, in which the various n++ / ++n are executed, is undefined by the C standard and might change over time or depending on target machine and/or optimization options.

Regarding post increment

南笙酒味 提交于 2019-12-02 10:37:42
问题 int get() { static i = 1; return i++; } int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { printf("%d %d %d\n", get(), get(), get()); return 0; } Output: 3 2 1 (Order depends upon compiler) Question: But why is the value before increment returned of the static variable (file scope). What is the thumb rule of post/pre increment? I never get it correct. Please help. Okay, let me be more specific, all the examples that I read are like, a = i++; or a = ++i; these are the expressions to increment then assign or

Semantics of pre- and postfix “++” operator in Java [duplicate]

≡放荡痞女 提交于 2019-12-02 02:09:00
This question already has an answer here: Java: Prefix/postfix of increment/decrement operators? 10 answers I wondering to know why this snippet of code give output 112 How this last digit 2 was creating? public static void main(String[] args) { int i = 0; System.out.print(++i); System.out.print(i++); System.out.print(i); Why does this happen? Your snippet it's translated as int i = 0; i = i + 1; // 1 System.out.print(i); // 1 System.out.print(i); // 1 i = i + 1; // 2 System.out.print(i); // 2 That's why the final result it's a 2. ++i it's incrementing the variable before being called by the

whether a language needs preIncrement (++x) and postIncrement (x++)

雨燕双飞 提交于 2019-12-02 00:50:33
问题 I have never seen the usecase for pre-increment and post-increment in actual code. The only place i see them most often are puzzles. My opinion is, it introduces more confusion rather than being useful. is there any real use case scenario for this can't this can be done by using += y = x++ y = x x += 1 回答1: It's just a shorter way of writing the same thing and it's only confusing to those who don't deeply understand C (a) . The same argument could be made for replacing: for (i = 0; i < 10; i+

whether a language needs preIncrement (++x) and postIncrement (x++)

五迷三道 提交于 2019-12-01 21:14:21
I have never seen the usecase for pre-increment and post-increment in actual code. The only place i see them most often are puzzles. My opinion is, it introduces more confusion rather than being useful. is there any real use case scenario for this can't this can be done by using += y = x++ y = x x += 1 It's just a shorter way of writing the same thing and it's only confusing to those who don't deeply understand C (a) . The same argument could be made for replacing: for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) printf ("%d\n", i); with: i = 0; while (i < 10) { printf ("%d\n", i); i = i + 1; } since any for can also

How does the increment operator work in an if statement?

假装没事ソ 提交于 2019-12-01 19:33:33
问题 #include <stdio.h> int main() { int x = 0; if (x++) printf("true\n"); else if (x == 1) printf("false\n"); return 0; } Output: false Why is the output false? x++ is post increment; this means that the value of x is used then it is incremented. If it is so, then x=0 should be used and the answer should be true. 回答1: In C, 0 is treated as false . In x++ , the value of x , i.e, 0 is used in the expression and it becomes if(0) // It is false printf("true\n"); The body of if doesn't get executed.

Dereference-assignment to a doubly incremented OutputIterator

北城余情 提交于 2019-12-01 18:14:48
问题 Per the (excellent) question C++ OutputIterator post-increment requirements, we observe that for a dereferenceable and incrementable value r of OutputIterator type X , and value o of appropriate type, the expression *r++ = o; is valid and has equivalent semantics to X a(r); ++r; *a = o; However, is it still the case the a is dereference-assignable if r has been incremented more than once in the intervening period; that is, is this code valid? X a(r); ++r; ++r; *a = o; It's difficult to see