views:

1715

answers:

9

Half jokingly half serious: why can't I do ++i++ in C-like languages, specifically in C#?

I'd expect it to increment the value, use that in my expression, then increment again.

+10  A: 

Because you care about a next programmer maintaining (or trying to re-write)your code, long after you're fired for defying popular conventions.

vehomzzz
This is why it's "immoral", but in fact it's illegal as well as immoral.
Simon Nickerson
unfortunately lots of c++ (hopefully to be fixed in the next standard) are immoral and politically incorrect to use, yet legal...
vehomzzz
that's a comment relating to the design of a program, more than relating to the design of a language...
DanM
+42  A: 

Short answer: i++ is not an "lvalue", so can't be the subject of an assignment.

Simon Nickerson
post-increment has precedence over pre-increment; you want to say that `i++` isn't an lvalue, not `++i`. (Though it doesn't work either way)
Stephen Canon
`++i` is an lvalue, so `(++i)++` would be valid but for the fact that it writes to `i` twice without an intervening sequence point. The problem is that the grammar specifies that `++i++` is equivalent to` ++(i++)`.
Charles Bailey
@Charles Bailey: ++i is an lvalue in C and C++, but IIRC not in C#.
Steve Jessop
++i is not an lvalue in C. Try assigning to it and see what your compiler says.
Stephen Canon
Good point, well made. What I was trying to highlight, though, was more along the lines of "the question says specifically C#", rather than "I can't remember the awkward differences between C and C++".
Steve Jessop
OK, my previous argument definitely applies to `C++`. In any case, with respect to the original question, it is irrelevant whether `++i` is an lvalue, because `i++` definitely isn't and that's the way the grammar works for `++i++` for all C-like languages.
Charles Bailey
@stephentyrone: yes, you're right. Answer edited accordingly.
Simon Nickerson
In C++ ++i or i++ might or might not be an lvalue. It all depends on whether or not operator overloading is in effect for that particular expressions and whether or not the return type of the `operator++(/*which one?*/)` is an lvalue. Remember that the overloaded operator could return whatever it likes, even if it wouldn't make sense in the 'classic' use of the operator. Usually that would be a bad, bad thing to do. But take a look at `operator<<()` for streams - it returns an lvalue where the built-in operator `<<` returns an rvalue.
Michael Burr
If you call a variable "i" and it has a user-defined type, then you deserve for people to fail to realise you've overloaded operators.
Steve Jessop
What if the variable is called 'status' or 'curValue'?
Michael Burr
+2  A: 

I believe that the increment(or decrement) operator needs an lvalue to assign to. However ++i is not an lvalue, it's an expression. Someone better versed in compilers might be able to clarify if there is any technical reason for this constraint.

nall
The type of ++i *is* an lvalue in C.
Charles Bailey
Could you clarify this a bit? I tried to compile "++i = 4;" and get an error saying that an lvalue is required on the left hand of the operand. Maybe my misunderstanding is in the definition of lvalue? I understood it to be something that could be assigned to.
nall
David Thornley
Got it. Thanks much!
nall
OK, it's _definitely_ an lvalue in C++, I now can't find a definitive answer for C.
Charles Bailey
Either way, it's not relevant to the question as `++i++` would be equivalent to `++(i++)` so it only matters whether the "not an lvalue" issue applies to `i++` (which it does).
Charles Bailey
You should clear your wording: An lvalue *is* an expression. What it isn't traditionally is a value, because a value is the interpretation of the object's contents (in C and C++ at least). In the most recent draft, `5.3.2` reads "The result is the updated operand; it is an lvalue" - no mentioning of "value" anymore.
Johannes Schaub - litb
.. Unless of course your answer is about C, in which case `++i` is in fact *not* an lvalue. In the C99 draft n1256, you find this: "An assignment expression has the value of the left operand after the assignment, but is not an lvalue", while it says that `++i` is equivalent to `i+=1`. In addition, any lvalue is automatically converted to a non-lvalue (rvalue) in most contexts in C.
Johannes Schaub - litb
+5  A: 

Because the result of i++ isn't an lvalue.

Stephen Canon
++i would be evaluated first.
Will Bickford
post-increment has precedence, actually.
Stephen Canon
+1  A: 

From section 7.5.9 of the C# 3.0 specification:

The operand of a postfix increment or decrement operation must be an expression classified as a variable, a property access, or an indexer access. The result of the operation is a value of the same type as the operand. If the operand of a postfix increment or decrement operation is a property or indexer access, the property or indexer must have both a get and a set accessor. If this is not the case, a compile-time error occurs.

Additionally, the post-increment expression (i++) would be evaluated first because it has a higher precedence than the pre-increment (++i) operator.

John Rasch
+1  A: 

This is written more concisely as 'Its and lvalue'.

At a compiler level:

Because a variable can not have its value changed more than once between two sequence points.
Even though the post increment happens after the current expression it is still within the same two sequence points as the expression as a whole. Between two sequence points the compiler is allowed to do a whole host of nasty optimization tricks which potentially render multiple assignment as (undefined or unspecified or words to that effect) behavior.

Martin York
+51  A: 

Though the short answer "it's not an lvalue" is correct, that's perhaps just begging the question. Why isn't it an lvalue? Or, as we say in C#, a variable.

The reason is because you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Work it out logically:

First off, the meaning of a ++ operator in C#, whether postfix or prefix, is "take the value of this variable, increment the value, assign the new value to the variable, and produce a value as a result". The value produced as the result is either the original value or the incremented value, depending on whether it was a postfix or a prefix. But either way, you produce a value.

Second, the value of a variable is always the current contents of that variable. (Modulo certain bizarre threading scenarios that would take us far afield.)

I hope you agree that these are perfectly sensible rules.

Now it should be clear why the result of i++ cannot be a variable, but in case it isn't, let me make it clear:

Suppose i is 10. The meaning of i++ should be "get the value of i — 10 — increment it — 11 — store it — i is now 11 — and give the original value as the result — 10". So when you say print(i++) it should print 10, and 11 should be stored in i.

Now suppose the meaning of i++ is to return the variable, not the value. You say print(i++) and what happens? You get the value of i — 10 — increment it — 11 — store it — i is now 11 — and give the variable back as a result. What's the current value of the variable? 11! Which is exactly what you DON'T want to print.

In short, if i++ returned a variable then it would be doing exactly the opposite of the intended meaning of the operator! Your proposal is logically inconsistent, which is why no language does it that way.

Eric Lippert
Actually the pre increment is supposed to increment the value and return a reference to the original object not a value.
Martin York
Nice explanation
peacedog
Martin, my explanation is both precise and accurate; I'm talking about the C# semantics, not the C or C++ semantics, because that is what the original poster specifically asked for. I'll make that more clear in the text.
Eric Lippert
@Martin York: Yes, and that's why (in those languages) (++i)++ is still valid. However, ++i++ is actually equivalent to ++(i++), as postincrement has higher precedence than preincrement.
TokenMacGuy
+3  A: 

I tested (++i,i++) as a workaround:

#include <stdio.h> 

int main(){
  int i=0;

  printf(" i:         %i\n", i         );
  printf(" (++i,i++): %i\n", (++i,i++) );
  printf(" i:         %i\n", i         );
}

Result:


i:         0
(++i,i++): 1
i:         2
sambowry
My eyes, my eyes!
RJFalconer
A: 

Short answer: Because you would make Dijkstra cry, thats why! ;)

How to get it working:

#include <stdio.h> 

int main(){
   int i=0;

   // this is how the operators normaly work
   printf(" i++:       %i\n", i++       );
   i=0;
   printf(" ++i:       %i\n", ++i       );

   // this how you should proceed to achive the desired 
   // result as shown by 
   // 'sambowry'(http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1511082/why-cant-i-do-i-in-c-like-languages/1511279#1511279)
   printf("------\n");
   i=0;
   printf(" i:         %i\n", i         );
   printf(" (++i,i++): %i\n", (++i,i++) );
   printf(" i:         %i\n", i         );

}

output:

 i++:       0
 ++i:       1
------
 i:         0
 (++i,i++): 1
 i:         2
João Portela