Better C++?

[Jeremy DeHaan]

On Friday, 14 February 2014 at 20:26:02 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
> 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

My original idea was to be (C++)++, which makes sense
conceptually, but wasn't valid code. :P