Post increment and decrement
Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Sat Mar 14 15:35:24 PDT 2015
On 03/14/2015 03:23 PM, deadalnix wrote:
> But, for some reason, the topic come up again and again from C++ devs
> that have no idea the optimization guys solved the issues for years now.
If we are talking about C++, it is not possible to not take that copy
for user-defined types. Due to separate compilation, the compiler does
not even see the definition of operator++(int).
And the compiler cannot replace calls to operator++(int) with calls to
operator++() (when the return value is not used) because the programmer
may have done different things than the canonical implmentation of
post-increment.
C++ needs a rule like D's, which will never be there.
Ali
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list