• Frustrated (4/4) Feb 14 2014 Is that not just C+++? When the gc and allocation gets fixed
• H. S. Teoh (6/11) Feb 14 2014 I have enough trouble imagining C^n for irrational n, nevermind negative
• Steven Schveighoffer (5/7) Feb 14 2014 No, C+++ isn't valid, and I don't know about C++++, but I'm suspecting n...
• Jeremy DeHaan (4/13) Feb 14 2014 (++C)++
• Steven Schveighoffer (5/23) Feb 14 2014 Maybe valid, but what message is it sending?! C+=2 is much more efficien...
• Jeremy DeHaan (4/30) Feb 14 2014 My original idea was to be (C++)++, which makes sense
• Steven Schveighoffer (9/11) Feb 14 2014 Actually, it doesn't make sense. C++ increments C, but returns the value...
• Asman01 (3/7) Feb 14 2014 I don't what number n would be but the n for C++++ give C#... we

"Frustrated" <c1514843 drdrb.com> writes:

Is that not just C+++? When the gc and allocation gets fixed
we'll end up with C++++?

Then don't we have D = C^n for some n? Does this hold for
negative numbers? Complex numbers?

"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 07:28:33PM +0000, Frustrated wrote:
 Is that not just C+++? When the gc and allocation gets fixed
 we'll end up with C++++?
 
 Then don't we have D = C^n for some n? Does this hold for
 negative numbers? Complex numbers?

I have enough trouble imagining C^n for irrational n, nevermind negative
numbers or complex numbers!


T

-- 
Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals could believe them. -- George
Orwell

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:28:33 -0500, Frustrated <c1514843 drdrb.com> wrote:

 Is that not just C+++? When the gc and allocation gets fixed
 we'll end up with C++++?

No, C+++ isn't valid, and I don't know about C++++, but I'm suspecting no.

The next generation would be C+=2

:P

-Steve

"Jeremy DeHaan" <dehaan.jeremiah gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 14 February 2014 at 20:11:19 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
 On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:28:33 -0500, Frustrated 
 <c1514843 drdrb.com> wrote:

 Is that not just C+++? When the gc and allocation gets fixed
 we'll end up with C++++?

 No, C+++ isn't valid, and I don't know about C++++, but I'm 
 suspecting no.

 The next generation would be C+=2

 :P

 -Steve

(++C)++

It looks silly, but it's valid in D!

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:23:50 -0500, Jeremy DeHaan  
<dehaan.jeremiah gmail.com> wrote:

 On Friday, 14 February 2014 at 20:11:19 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
 wrote:
 On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:28:33 -0500, Frustrated <c1514843 drdrb.com>  
 wrote:

 Is that not just C+++? When the gc and allocation gets fixed
 we'll end up with C++++?

 No, C+++ isn't valid, and I don't know about C++++, but I'm suspecting  
 no.

 The next generation would be C+=2

 :P

 -Steve

 (++C)++

 It looks silly, but it's valid in D!

Maybe valid, but what message is it sending?! C+=2 is much more efficient  
;)

-Steve

"Jeremy DeHaan" <dehaan.jeremiah gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 14 February 2014 at 20:26:02 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
 On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:23:50 -0500, Jeremy DeHaan 
 <dehaan.jeremiah gmail.com> wrote:

 On Friday, 14 February 2014 at 20:11:19 UTC, Steven 
 Schveighoffer
 wrote:
 On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:28:33 -0500, Frustrated 
 <c1514843 drdrb.com> wrote:

 Is that not just C+++? When the gc and allocation gets fixed
 we'll end up with C++++?

 No, C+++ isn't valid, and I don't know about C++++, but I'm 
 suspecting no.

 The next generation would be C+=2

 :P

 -Steve

 (++C)++

 It looks silly, but it's valid in D!

 Maybe valid, but what message is it sending?! C+=2 is much more 
 efficient ;)

 -Steve

My original idea was to be (C++)++, which makes sense
conceptually, but wasn't valid code. :P

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:27:46 -0500, Jeremy DeHaan  
<dehaan.jeremiah gmail.com> wrote:

 My original idea was to be (C++)++, which makes sense
 conceptually, but wasn't valid code. :P

Actually, it doesn't make sense. C++ increments C, but returns the value  
that C was before the increment. So it returns a temporary. Incrementing a  
temporary is not allowed (where would the incremented value go?), and even  
if it were allowed, would likely not be what you want ;)

++++C may be valid, but is butt-ugly.

C+=2 is just far superior on all fronts!

-Steve

"Asman01" <jckj33 gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 14 February 2014 at 19:28:34 UTC, Frustrated wrote:
 Is that not just C+++? When the gc and allocation gets fixed
 we'll end up with C++++?

 Then don't we have D = C^n for some n? Does this hold for
 negative numbers? Complex numbers?


need a number positive greater than this. :)