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.