Sorry, I don't get this one. How does this work? ArnavBorborah it's an old expression meaning why waste words when a picture does a better job , used as a joke in this context. Ah yes, the obscure slide operator. How could I forget! This is not quite right. The value of x inside the loop body is different in the second case.
The assignment statement in your example should be above the logic for it to be equivalent. Postfix -- subtracts 1, but the comparison will happen with the value from before the subtraction. In postfix, the logic is executed prior to the decrement and thus both samples are equivalent. Feel free to write them up in a Console and test them.
They're still not equivalent. After the first loop, x is -1 or overflown in case it is unsigned , after the second, it is 0. Zero with "lasers". Matt Joiner. Not exactly true. Decrementing and Incrementing take the same amount of time, the benefit of this is that comparison to zero is very fast compared to comparison versus a variable.
State Ousts Auburn 4-1 In SEC Championship Opener; Meets Host A&M Thursday
This is true for many architectures, not just x Anything with a JZ instruction jump if zero. Poking around you can find many "for" loops that are written backwards to save cycles on the compare. This is particularly fast on x86 as the act of decrementing the variable set the zero flag appropriately, so you could then branch without having to explicitly compare the variable. Well, decrementing toward zero means you only have to compare against 0 per loop iteration, while iterating toward n means comparing with n each iteration.
The former tends to be easier and on some architectures, is automatically tested after every data register operation.
Summing Consecutive Numbers trachingepader.cf
Increment and decrement are equally fast, probably on all platforms definitely on x The difference is in testing the loop end condition. To see if the counter has reached zero is practically free - when you decrement a value, a zero flag is set in processor and to detect the end condition you just need to check that flag whereas when you increment a comparison operation is required before end condition can be detected.
Of course, all this is moot these days, since modern compilers can vectorize and reverse loops automatically. This doesn't compile.
How To Measure Any Distance With The Pythagorean Theorem – BetterExplained
C is not Pascal, where the interior of do EJP it does compile. The syntax is do statement while expression ;. Having said that, I hope it is understood I meant the example as a joke. Your second explanation is not correct. The compiler will see ab and think a-- -- - b , which does not compile because a-- does not return an lvalue.
Additionally, x and -- are two separate tokens. This is known as Maximal munch. DoctorT: it passes the lexer. Goes to cant be true always especially when value of x is negative. It's quite tricky to exit a loop down to zero with an unsigned variable otherwise. I think this is a little bit misleading Josh: actually, overflow gives undefined behavior for int , so it could just as easily eat your dog as take x to zero if it starts out negative. This is a very important idiom to me for the reason given in the comnmet by PeteKirkham, as I often need to do decreasing loops over unsigned quantities all the way to 0.
For comparison, the idiom of omitting tests for zero, such as writing while n-- instead for unsigned n , buys you nothing and for me greatly hampers readability. It also has the pleasant property that you specify one more than the initial index, which is usually what you want e. See the output of this code: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 We now first compare and then decrement by seeing 0 in the output. My compiler will print out when I run this code.
- Organic Marin: Recipes from Land to Table.
- Novak Djokovic passes Wimbledon test as Kevin Anderson crashes out.
- Parents say.
It is nice that the original looks like "while x goes to 0" though. It doesn't apply to this situation. H2CO3 This isn't true in general. There are places where white space must be used to separate tokens, e.
- Finance and Inequality: Theory and Evidence (Annual Review of Financial Economics Book 1).
- Operation Ersatz: A novel about an al Qaeda counterfeiting operation in the Philippines.
- Grand Canyon South and North Bass Trail Guide.
- NEVER AFTER 5 4 PDF Original - Free E-Book Download;
- Más allá de la sumisión en Hollywood (El placer de las cadenas nº 1) (Spanish Edition)?
- The Neighbor Next Door.
- Racing Incident Report.
Rice Dec 4 '13 at They're applied as the 2 separate operators they are. They're only written misleadingly to look like "a single one". A "goes up to BenLeggiero That could 'work' in the sense of generating code that does something while infuriating readers who don't like faux-clever code , but the semantics are different, as its use of predecrement means it will execute one fewer iteration. Also known as greedy parsing, if I recall correctly. But back to current matters. Gauff leads The world premiere of Andy Murray and Serena Williams has been pushed back until tomorrow.
A sensible decision to cancel given that Williams is up first on No 1 Court in the singles tomorrow.
Wimbledon pic. Hercog did give her a little hand but the teenager will have won even more fans with the way she came from down, saving those two match points. Though she may have also upset a few spectators, because a third set means Andy Murray and Serena Williams will be detained in the locker room for a little longer. I have also called the coach after watching CocoGauff second set. Currently having the massages Wimbledon We're going to a decider!
CocoGauff wins the second set tie-break - who are you backing from here? No quit in year-old Coco Gauff, rallying from down in the second set to win it in a tiebreak, , and force a third set against Hercog. Incredible perseverance and patience, with Hercog trying to slice her into insanity. The story of Wimbledon Week 1 isn't over yet. But again, the Slovenian is overcome by anxiety. Hercog jumps up and down on the spot, trying to shake out those nerves.
F rom down, Gauff brings up a set point at with the overhead! Big mistake.
- Happily N'Ever After - Wikipedia.
- Happily Never After!
- Read e-book Happy NEver After ();
Hawk-Eye shows it got the line. A never-ending rally, in which neither player wants to pull the trigger, ends when Gauff goes long. Hercog is slicing every shot right now, this is so cagey, and Gauff eventually, eventually pulls the trigger! The year-old takes the tie-break This is the first tie-break Gauff has played in her six matches on Tour.
With so much on the line, both players are struggling to hit through their shots, and their feet look heavy. At a bird decides to interrupt proceedings, just to add to the drama. A gruelling fifth point is won by Gauff with a fortunate net cord, which she celebrates by raising her arms in the air. Hercog holds to stem the tide, stopping a run of three games against her.
The Slovenian leads The teenager scrambles through from there and this absorbing set will be settled by a tie-break.
Understanding The Theorem
A very isolated rain interruption at Wimbledon today Hercog is alternating between the tightest of shots and terrific winners. Gauff then decides to become the dictator, moving to , and game. The score was , , , , Goffin plays Verdasco in the last Key events Show 8. Live feed Show. Facebook Twitter. July 5, Currently having the massages Wimbledon19 July 5, Newest Newer. Older Oldest. Topics Wimbledon