++i is more efficient than i++

++i is more efficient than i++

Do you even compile?

Bet

++i is the ugliest way of incrementing a variable.

Why would you plus and the variable that you're iterating through?

i++, the variable is being increased.

In reality it should be called ++c

So that we can add c to nothing?

It's literally _ + i
i++ increases the variable by one.
++i is adding i to nothing.

Fucking stupid.

>I don't know the difference between prefix and postfix

++you are wrong++

i = i + (i + 1) % i

int i = 0;

>postfix
suffix?

Fucking retard, they are both unary operations.

Memes aside, ++i is more efficient when using an iterator in a (non range based) C++ for loop.

no. adding c to nothing would look like
+=c

you obviously don't know c.

++i and i++ do the same thing but in different order and compilers will optimize it to not make a difference

this should be legal

[[used]] T operator++(int){
T t = *this;
++*this;
return t;
}

[[unused]] T operator++(int){
return ++*this;
}

or when using any object that is not a primary type that has operator++ implemented, be it prefix or postfix.

The postfix one creates a copy of the original object, which is often less efficient than directly incrementing the original object.

lol do you actually not know how math works

/thread

not on all language

example:

int x = 5;
int y = ++x;

Both are now 6
However:
int x = 5;
int y = x++;

x will be 6 and y will be 5

Why hasnt anyone brought this up in the entire fucking thread wtf is this Sup Forums demographic im looking at

THanks for this, truly

Most unary operators are prefix. I use ++i for consistency.