[–] Rakosman 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I prefer to always use the postfix operator. To me it is more important to have easy to read code than succinct code, and I also think the prefix one is uglier, so there's that.

[–] WhiteMakesRight 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

But they're different operators, with different semantics......

[–] Rakosman 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Yes, and?

[–] theNakedNecromancer 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

As long as you're not screwing with the way C performs the action, I don't see why not. In other words: x++ and ++x are two completely different functions.

So, doing x *= ++i will perform:

x = x * (i + 1)

But, doing x *= i++ will act like:

x = (x * i) + 1

Beyond that, style is up to you. Most C-coders (and style guides) won't want whitespace around the variable, or between a variable and increment operator. But, if it's code just for you, who cares?

[–] J_Darnley 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

No it won't. The second is equivalent to:

x = x * i;
i = i + 1;

a++ is "read then increment" whereas ++a is "increment then read".

[–] TheBuddha 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/223313/style-guide-for-c

However, it's more important to be consistent. Whatever you go with, be consistent.

[–] WhiteMakesRight 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Consistency is irrelevant when you're talking about two different operators with different semantics though. Use the one you actually need.

[–] WhiteMakesRight 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Who cares. CoffeeScript took "nice" syntax to it's logical conclusions and ended up with the ugliest and most unreadable language ever created.

[–] RicardoBronson 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

They both suck because of unspecified behavior in some situations. And usually when you want it least. Like for loops using pointers. Trust me, just say "counter += 1" and you will never have to know the pain EDIT: Actually why bother trusting me, do a search: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=postfix%20increment%20unspecified%20behavior

[–] WhiteMakesRight 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

The operators have nothing to do with the unspecified behaviour you're talking about though -- they're just a succinct way to trigger it. What's actually unspecified is the order of evaluation of function arguments -- which is something you should be aware of even if you never use increment operators.

Not using increment operators at all is a typical example of "scarring on the first cut". If you're going to write software in C, rules-of-thumb will only get you so far. At some point, you have to read and understand the specification in depth.

[–] RicardoBronson 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I take more of a "when in doubt, do it in python" approach because life is just too short to spend on specifications :) But I'm sure you're right

[–] danielabrown 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

the both are perfect. once they are well utilized properly. normally on hackrypton.com there are so many tutorials that will help in securing things like that easily

[–] badkangaroo 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

i often see in a for loop (;;++i) or (;;i++) someone suggesting that ++i was better for some reason, any ideas why?

[–] skruf [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Even though modern compilers optimize for either of these uses, I'm sure, the idea was that when post-incrementing (i++), 'i' here will return the value and then increment it, which apparently takes more time than pre-increment (++i) where you would increment and then get the new value.

Actually, I'm in the habit of pre-increment in the for-loops, I think it's more of an uncontrolled obsession than anything else...

[–] WhiteMakesRight 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

It makes zero difference which of the two you use as the third expression in a for loop. Whenever you see someone prescribing rules without explaining their reasoning, it's a good idea to disregard everything they say.

[–] RevanProdigalKnight 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Just in case you didn't already know, there is actually a difference between counter++ and ++counter, as the first increments after reading the value and the second before reading the value, e.g.:

int counter = 0;

printf("%d\n", counter++); // 0
printf("%d\n", ++counter); // 2

Most people use counter++ because of this behavior being closer to the logical alternative of counter += 1.

load more comments ▼ (2 remaining)