Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ptsfa!ames!ll-xn!mit-eddie!apollo!arnold From: arnold@apollo.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Style [++i vs i++] Message-ID: <35f199bd.ae48@apollo.uucp> Date: Wed, 8-Jul-87 18:00:00 EDT Article-I.D.: apollo.35f199bd.ae48 Posted: Wed Jul 8 18:00:00 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Jul-87 13:56:40 EDT References: <17310@amdcad.AMD.COM> <246@hubcap.UUCP> <1748@zaphod.UUCP> Reply-To: arnold@apollo.UUCP (Ken Arnold) Distribution: na Organization: Apollo Computer, Chelmsford, MA Lines: 40 In article <1748@zaphod.UUCP> billj@zaphod.UUCP (Bill Jones) writes: >Yet in the opening section of the C++ Book, we find > > "The name C++ was coined by Rick Mascitti. The name signifies > the evolutionary nature of the changes from C. '++' is the C > increment operator. The slightly shorter name C+ is a syntax > error; it has also been used as the name of an unrelated > language. Connoisseurs of C semantics find C++ inferior to > ++C." This is brought to you courtesy of the people who consider char* ptr; to be good style. I wouldn't put too much faith in their assertions of their own connoisseur-ship. Their code is probably the ugliest *published* C code (from a stylistic viewpoint) that I have seen. "i++" is what I learned, and although I can hardly claim to be one of the original C programmers, I do go back some ways, and picked up most of my style from the kernal (which wasn't perfect, but was the largest block of extant C code available). Not that it makes any difference on any compiler worth a bucket of warm cow spit... Ken Arnold P.S. Just to avoid someone asking, the reason I consider the above variable declaration to be ugly style is that char* p1, p2; doesn't do what it implies it ought to do. The '*' still is a modifier of p1, even though it is *strongly* attached visually to the type, which it is not a part of at all. In other words, the visual binding of the '*' to "char" is exactly opposity the syntactic binding of '*' to p1; or, more succintly, the layout lies about the meaning. If you want to discuss *this* style point, please change the subject line. I'm just using it as an example of why *not* to trust the C++ people on style.