post-increment

问题 Is iter++->empty() a legal expression? iter is an iterator of a vector of string s. I am asking because considering the precedence of the operators both -> and () should precede the postfix increment but I really don't know how the operands should be grouped. On my compiler it works (the expression yields the empty() result for the first string and iter points to the second string) but I'm still wondering if it is Undefined Behaviour. Edit I just found the solution (I think): iter++->empty()

问题 This question already has answers here : How do the post increment (i++) and pre increment (++i) operators work in Java? (14 answers) Closed 2 years ago . I know how pre and post increment operators work, but recently I found out a strange behavior in Java. What i knew so far was (as explained in this answer as well): a = 5; i=++a + ++a + a++; => i=6 + 7 + 7; (a=8) which clearly shows that the ++a returns the value after increment, a++ returns the value before increment. But very recently, I

问题 This question already has answers here : Why avoid increment (“++”) and decrement (“--”) operators in JavaScript? (16 answers) Closed 4 years ago . I am searching for a reason for why increment operator doesn't increment the numeric value in the place where I set the innerHTML value, like below: <div id="php"></div> var a = 14; document.getElementById("php").innerHTML = a++;//the result will be 14 instead of 15 回答1: It does increase the variable, however it writes to the innerHTML then

问题 This question already has answers here : Why avoid increment (“++”) and decrement (“--”) operators in JavaScript? (16 answers) Closed 4 years ago . I am searching for a reason for why increment operator doesn't increment the numeric value in the place where I set the innerHTML value, like below: <div id="php"></div> var a = 14; document.getElementById("php").innerHTML = a++;//the result will be 14 instead of 15 回答1: It does increase the variable, however it writes to the innerHTML then

问题 This question already has answers here : Undefined behavior and sequence points (5 answers) Behavior of post increment in cout [duplicate] (4 answers) Closed 13 days ago . I'm having trouble understanding how Post Increment (++), Pre Increment work together in an example. x++ means add 1 to the variable But I am confused with this example: using namespace std; / run this program using the console pauser or add your own getch, system("pause") or input loop */ int main() { int a; a=8; cout<<++a

来源： https://stackoverflow.com/questions/25705000/the-difference-between-n-and-n-at-the-end-of-a-while-loop-ansi-c

来源： https://stackoverflow.com/questions/25705000/the-difference-between-n-and-n-at-the-end-of-a-while-loop-ansi-c

问题 #include <stdio.h> int main(void) { int i; int *p = (int *) malloc(5 * sizeof(int)); for (i=0; i<10; i++) *(p + i) = i; printf("%d ", *p++); return 0; } So, I ran this code. Now I was told here that Why won't the output be 4 in this case? (in accepted answer) that *p++ will increment pointer first and then dereference it. Therefore, in the above code, shouldn't the pointer be incremented first and then de-referenced and hence output should be 1 ? Instead, output comes out to be 0 . Why? 回答1:

问题 An issue of streams, internal string, and operation ordering with MSVC versus GCC / Clang Hello everyone, I just recently began to work more seriously with MSVC for a cross-platform project of mine, and while testing outputs via chained STD stream ( ie. a succession of obj.foo() << endl << obj.bar() << endl << [..etc] ) I came across a behavior when using internally updated string neither did I expected nor had encountered on Linux with GCC or Clang . Compiler versions were GCC 7.5, Clang 11

问题 An issue of streams, internal string, and operation ordering with MSVC versus GCC / Clang Hello everyone, I just recently began to work more seriously with MSVC for a cross-platform project of mine, and while testing outputs via chained STD stream ( ie. a succession of obj.foo() << endl << obj.bar() << endl << [..etc] ) I came across a behavior when using internally updated string neither did I expected nor had encountered on Linux with GCC or Clang . Compiler versions were GCC 7.5, Clang 11