Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!princeton!allegra!alice!ark From: ark@alice.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Style [++i vs i++] Message-ID: <7069@alice.UUCP> Date: Mon, 6-Jul-87 23:47:08 EDT Article-I.D.: alice.7069 Posted: Mon Jul 6 23:47:08 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 8-Jul-87 06:29:32 EDT References: <17310@amdcad.AMD.COM> <246@hubcap.UUCP> <1748@zaphod.UUCP> <2710@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> Distribution: na Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner NJ Lines: 19 In article <2710@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>, jss@hector.UUCP writes: > >I suspect the reason is that, as others have mentioned, C++ implies > >that the value of the expression is determined before the increment. > >Are Bjarne or the other abovementioned connoisseurs listening, and > >willing to reveal the answer? > > I was around when the name was coined by Rick. The reason C++ was > chosen rather than ++C was the "obvious" lexical one. A name > containing a "+" is pretty radical, a name beginning with it > would have potentially created a real headache. Although Jerry's comment is correct as far as history goes, C++ is really a better name than ++C. The reason is that C++ means "increment C, return its old value" which is exactly what the C++ translator does.