Better C++?

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:23:50 -0500, Jeremy DeHaan  
<dehaan.jeremiah at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, 14 February 2014 at 20:11:19 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:28:33 -0500, Frustrated <c1514843 at drdrb.com>  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Is that not just C+++? When the gc and allocation gets fixed
>>> we'll end up with C++++?
>>
>> No, C+++ isn't valid, and I don't know about C++++, but I'm suspecting  
>> no.
>>
>> The next generation would be C+=2
>>
>> :P
>>
>> -Steve
>
> (++C)++
>
> It looks silly, but it's valid in D!

Maybe valid, but what message is it sending?! C+=2 is much more efficient  
;)

-Steve