++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.