29

Half jokingly half serious : Why can't I do ++i++ in C-like languages, specifically in C#?

I'd expect it to increment the value, use that in my expression, then increment again.

Grijesh Chauhan
  • 57,103
  • 20
  • 141
  • 208
Andriy Volkov
  • 18,653
  • 9
  • 68
  • 83

8 Answers8

86

Though the short answer "it's not an lvalue" is correct, that's perhaps just begging the question. Why isn't it an lvalue? Or, as we say in C#, a variable.

The reason is because you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Work it out logically:

First off, the meaning of a ++ operator in C#, whether postfix or prefix, is "take the value of this variable, increment the value, assign the new value to the variable, and produce a value as a result". The value produced as the result is either the original value or the incremented value, depending on whether it was a postfix or a prefix. But either way, you produce a value.

Second, the value of a variable is always the current contents of that variable. (Modulo certain bizarre threading scenarios that would take us far afield.)

I hope you agree that these are perfectly sensible rules.

Now it should be clear why the result of i++ cannot be a variable, but in case it isn't, let me make it clear:

Suppose i is 10. The meaning of i++ should be "get the value of i — 10 — increment it — 11 — store it — i is now 11 — and give the original value as the result — 10". So when you say print(i++) it should print 10, and 11 should be stored in i.

Now suppose the meaning of i++ is to return the variable, not the value. You say print(i++) and what happens? You get the value of i — 10 — increment it — 11 — store it — i is now 11 — and give the variable back as a result. What's the current value of the variable? 11! Which is exactly what you DON'T want to print.

In short, if i++ returned a variable then it would be doing exactly the opposite of the intended meaning of the operator! Your proposal is logically inconsistent, which is why no language does it that way.

Timwi
  • 65,159
  • 33
  • 165
  • 230
Eric Lippert
  • 647,829
  • 179
  • 1,238
  • 2,067
  • 1
    Actually the pre increment is supposed to increment the value and return a reference to the original object not a value. – Martin York Oct 02 '09 at 18:53
  • 4
    Martin, my explanation is both precise and accurate; I'm talking about the C# semantics, not the C or C++ semantics, because that is what the original poster specifically asked for. I'll make that more clear in the text. – Eric Lippert Oct 02 '09 at 19:37
  • 1
    @Martin York: Yes, and that's why (in those languages) (++i)++ is still valid. However, ++i++ is actually equivalent to ++(i++), as postincrement has higher precedence than preincrement. – SingleNegationElimination Oct 03 '09 at 01:06
59

Short answer: i++ is not an "lvalue", so can't be the subject of an assignment.

Simon Nickerson
  • 42,159
  • 20
  • 102
  • 127
  • 3
    post-increment has precedence over pre-increment; you want to say that `i++` isn't an lvalue, not `++i`. (Though it doesn't work either way) – Stephen Canon Oct 02 '09 at 18:32
  • 13
    `++i` is an lvalue, so `(++i)++` would be valid but for the fact that it writes to `i` twice without an intervening sequence point. The problem is that the grammar specifies that `++i++` is equivalent to` ++(i++)`. – CB Bailey Oct 02 '09 at 18:41
  • @Charles Bailey: ++i is an lvalue in C and C++, but IIRC not in C#. – Steve Jessop Oct 02 '09 at 18:51
  • 1
    ++i is not an lvalue in C. Try assigning to it and see what your compiler says. – Stephen Canon Oct 02 '09 at 18:54
  • Good point, well made. What I was trying to highlight, though, was more along the lines of "the question says specifically C#", rather than "I can't remember the awkward differences between C and C++". – Steve Jessop Oct 02 '09 at 19:00
  • OK, my previous argument definitely applies to `C++`. In any case, with respect to the original question, it is irrelevant whether `++i` is an lvalue, because `i++` definitely isn't and that's the way the grammar works for `++i++` for all C-like languages. – CB Bailey Oct 02 '09 at 19:13
  • @stephentyrone: yes, you're right. Answer edited accordingly. – Simon Nickerson Oct 02 '09 at 19:41
  • In C++ ++i or i++ might or might not be an lvalue. It all depends on whether or not operator overloading is in effect for that particular expressions and whether or not the return type of the `operator++(/*which one?*/)` is an lvalue. Remember that the overloaded operator could return whatever it likes, even if it wouldn't make sense in the 'classic' use of the operator. Usually that would be a bad, bad thing to do. But take a look at `operator<<()` for streams - it returns an lvalue where the built-in operator `<<` returns an rvalue. – Michael Burr Oct 02 '09 at 21:07
  • If you call a variable "i" and it has a user-defined type, then you deserve for people to fail to realise you've overloaded operators. – Steve Jessop Oct 02 '09 at 22:28
  • What if the variable is called 'status' or 'curValue'? – Michael Burr Oct 05 '09 at 19:36
18

Because you care about a next programmer maintaining (or trying to re-write)your code, long after you're fired for defying popular conventions.

vehomzzz
  • 42,832
  • 72
  • 186
  • 216
9

I tested (++i,i++) as a workaround:

#include <stdio.h> 

int main(){
  int i=0;

  printf(" i:         %i\n", i         );
  printf(" (++i,i++): %i\n", (++i,i++) );
  printf(" i:         %i\n", i         );
}

Result:


i:         0
(++i,i++): 1
i:         2
sambowry
  • 2,436
  • 1
  • 16
  • 13
6

Because the result of i++ isn't an lvalue.

Stephen Canon
  • 103,815
  • 19
  • 183
  • 269
3

I believe that the increment(or decrement) operator needs an lvalue to assign to. However ++i is not an lvalue, it's an expression. Someone better versed in compilers might be able to clarify if there is any technical reason for this constraint.

nall
  • 15,899
  • 4
  • 61
  • 65
  • 1
    The type of ++i *is* an lvalue in C. – CB Bailey Oct 02 '09 at 18:42
  • Could you clarify this a bit? I tried to compile "++i = 4;" and get an error saying that an lvalue is required on the left hand of the operand. Maybe my misunderstanding is in the definition of lvalue? I understood it to be something that could be assigned to. – nall Oct 02 '09 at 18:56
  • 3
    Section 5.3.2 of the standard, paragraph 1: "The value is the new value of the operand; it is an lvalue." (This is of course the paragraph on "prefix ++".) Of course, "++i = 4;" is also an attempt to change the value of i twice without an intervening sequence point, and therefore undefined behavior. "f(++i)" with "int f(int &)" would involve a sequence point, and should be legal. – David Thornley Oct 02 '09 at 19:04
  • OK, it's _definitely_ an lvalue in C++, I now can't find a definitive answer for C. – CB Bailey Oct 02 '09 at 19:09
  • Either way, it's not relevant to the question as `++i++` would be equivalent to `++(i++)` so it only matters whether the "not an lvalue" issue applies to `i++` (which it does). – CB Bailey Oct 02 '09 at 19:17
  • You should clear your wording: An lvalue *is* an expression. What it isn't traditionally is a value, because a value is the interpretation of the object's contents (in C and C++ at least). In the most recent draft, `5.3.2` reads "The result is the updated operand; it is an lvalue" - no mentioning of "value" anymore. – Johannes Schaub - litb Oct 02 '09 at 19:58
  • 3
    .. Unless of course your answer is about C, in which case `++i` is in fact *not* an lvalue. In the C99 draft n1256, you find this: "An assignment expression has the value of the left operand after the assignment, but is not an lvalue", while it says that `++i` is equivalent to `i+=1`. In addition, any lvalue is automatically converted to a non-lvalue (rvalue) in most contexts in C. – Johannes Schaub - litb Oct 02 '09 at 20:06
3

From section 7.5.9 of the C# 3.0 specification:

The operand of a postfix increment or decrement operation must be an expression classified as a variable, a property access, or an indexer access. The result of the operation is a value of the same type as the operand. If the operand of a postfix increment or decrement operation is a property or indexer access, the property or indexer must have both a get and a set accessor. If this is not the case, a compile-time error occurs.

Additionally, the post-increment expression (i++) would be evaluated first because it has a higher precedence than the pre-increment (++i) operator.

John Rasch
  • 62,489
  • 19
  • 106
  • 139
0

From C# specification:

The operand of a postfix increment or decrement operation must be an expression classified as a variable, a property access, or an indexer access. The result of the operation is a value of the same type as the operand.

An increment operator can only be applied to a variable (and ㏇) and it returns a value (not a variable). You cannot apply increment to a value (simply because there is no variable to assign the result to) so in C# you can increment a variable only once.

The situation is actually different for C++. According to C++ specification:

prefix increment or decrement is an lvalue expression

which means that in C++ you can call increment on the result of prefix increment or decrement. I.g. the following C++ code is actually valid:

#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

int main()
{
    int i = 13;

    (--i)++;
    cout<<i<<endl;

    (++i)--;
    cout<<i<<endl;

    return 0;
}

NB: The term lvalue is used in C and C++ only. And for the sake of diversity in C the result of prefix increment is actually rvalue so you can't increment increment in C.
C# language uses term variable_reference for a similar concept:

A variable_reference is an expression that is classified as a variable. A variable_reference denotes a storage location that can be accessed both to fetch the current value and to store a new value.

Ed'ka
  • 6,595
  • 29
  • 30