>>>>>++i >> >>and the interpreter replies >>0 >> >>Don't you think it is misleading when you expect a variable to >>increment? >> > > Terribly. So stop expecting it to increment :) > > Seriously, --i is also valid Python. Both expressions apply two unary > operators to a name. Would you have these become illegal, or start to > mean increment/decrement? Either change would break years of backwards > compatibility.
It looks like Python behaves more consistantly than C/C++/Java :) By adding plus/minus signs, you get consistant behavior: >>> x = 42 >>> +x 42 >>> ++x 42 >>> +++x 42 >>> ++++x 42 >>> # ad infinitum In C-like languages, you get x: 42 +x: 42 ++x: 43 +++x: invalid lvalue in increment -> compile fails ++++x: 45 +++++x: invalid lvalue in increment -> compile fails ++++++x: 48 (actually, g++ accepted this funky syntax, but gcc choked on it, so linguistic sludge is more tolerable in C++ than in C) Looks like the OP should be over on c.l.c++ griping about the inconsistancy of the "unary +" and "unary -" operators ;) -tkc (still waiting for my brain to kick in on a Sat. morning...) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
