Post increment and decrement

[Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d]

On 12/03/2015 9:12 p.m., Don wrote:
> On Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 04:06:14 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
>> On 12/03/2015 1:50 p.m., Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 3/11/15 10:23 AM, welkam wrote:
>>>> Observation Nr. 1
>>>> People prefer to write var++ instead of ++var.
>>>>
>>>> Observation Nr. 2
>>>> Because of observation Nr. 1 and other reasons compilers became good at
>>>> removing code that is not needed making var++ and ++var to produce the
>>>> same code if returned value is not used.
>>>>
>>>> Observation Nr. 3
>>>> Because of observation Nr. 2 more people use var++ in place where they
>>>> really only need ++var.
>>>>
>>>> Observation Nr. 4
>>>> Because of observation Nr. 3 people learning to program may mistakenly
>>>> learn that var++ is just incrementing. (I am included in that list)
>>>>
>>>> Observation Nr. 5
>>>> Because of observation Nr. 4 people can write slower than necessary
>>>> code
>>>> for classes with overloaded operator or even get bugs.
>>>>
>>>> Because of all this why not make only one increment/decrement operator
>>>> and have post increment/decrement to be called by template name,
>>>> because
>>>> it is a template?
>>>>
>>>> template post_inc(T) {
>>>> auto tmp = T;
>>>> T++;
>>>> return tmp;
>>>> }
>>>
>>> Observation Nr. 6
>>> Somebody didn't Read The Fine Manual. Page 369:
>>>
>>> =========
>>> If the result of a++ is not needed, the rewrite is ++a, which is
>>> subsequently rewritten to a.opUnary!"++"().
>>> =========
>>>
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>
>> +1
>> Compiler should work for you. This is one of those things it can
>> rewrite to preference. During optimization.
>
> It doesn't even rely on the optimizer. This happens in the front-end, in
> the semantic pass.

In our implementation yes. But I'm emphasizing it doesn't have to.