Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 14:55:55 -0500
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 12:55:53 -0700
From: Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.help
Subject: Re: [OT] Re: Why would one use += 1 at the place of ++?
References: <8762p7upgn.fsf@merciadriluca-station.MERCIADRILUCA> <4t6Bp.534$pi2.511@newsfe11.iad> <ir30ui$jok$1@dont-email.me> <veSdnZd_-OsAt0jQnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@earthlink.com> <ir4lca$6dk$1@dont-email.me>
In-Reply-To: <ir4lca$6dk$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <nYWdnV55_pvWWkvQnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
Lines: 30
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 75.8.126.96
X-Trace: sv3-bfxjS+1xwFUWN3MDXA+0ZQ6ADDFtf5sjlPqrFZEPQrm9lU0j4g6rJ00x57QXWBHE6Xj2qP1Cg2b9rcc!GPg1Wg5QRZWAZDm/4CsLPxHwlcVyi3a0Y59jDp2IXVoea5SSbwQz482vvWQ0jxVddQeLbxTcGYB4!SmN79v178DFE8+UDGRITB+ilhM2r+KhcIdw9I8/JIxo=
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2635
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.help:707

On 5/19/2011 7:57 PM, Eric Sosman wrote:
> On 5/19/2011 10:35 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
...
>> I do not understand why those operators exist in Java. They cannot be
>> used without going against style advice in the JLS and Java is not a
>> terse language.
>
> Not sure what style advice you refer to; the word "style" doesn't
> appear in the JLS' index. As for using the operators, I personally
> think they're convenient and easy to read in some contexts where the
> spelled-out counterparts would look clunky, mostly when I'm sliding
> through an array advancing an index as I go: `x[i++]' would be clumsy
> to rewrite with `+='.
...

The recommendation I meant is in Section 15.7, "Evaluation Order":

"It is recommended that code not rely crucially on this specification.
Code is usually clearer when each expression contains at most one side
effect, as its outermost operation, and when code does not depend on
exactly which exception arises as a consequence of the left-to-right
evaluation of expressions."

[http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/expressions.html#15.7]

Using ++, --, += etc. at the top level of an expression without other
side effects does conform to the recommendation, and that is how I
generally use them.

Patricia