Post increment and decrement

[krzaq via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 23 March 2015 at 12:10:32 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> Well, things like std::string are not cooperative in this 
> regard. Though, it's copied only to be instantly destructed, 
> theoretically it should be elided if the involved constructors 
> are annotated with sufficient purity or complementary operators.


That's why using preincrementation is the preferred default - you 
simply can't know predict what the user's type will do. And sure, 
maybe the compiler should optimize it away in this case, but as 
you can see, the pragmatic solution is to simply avoid this 
problem entirely.

> Also the iterator pretends to be copyable, but it can't resume 
> from the point where it was copied, can it?
Depends on the iterator type, in this case: no, I don't believe 
that it can be resumed.