Regarding ++, is that a reason not to make things a little easier (and give a choice to purists)? It reminds me of politicians not being allowed to change their minds like the rest of us.
Thanks for that, I guess there are so many to look through I got tired eyes.
:signOops:
Hi,
I agree with you both Basic should remain Basic.
A=A+1 is for me better understandable than A++ !
I am shure that just these 2 characters less will not bring any speed gain in typing.
Well, sorry for starting that. Having read all points of view, I agree, now.
badkarma 'nutshelled' it.
I also agree with the string manipulation from Commodore, which I also used; as well as one of the best, BBCBasic, which is still in use ported and updated to PC, it also had the string bits left etc. Another good one was Sinclair QL a bit more sophisticated.
I don't want to start anything.
Inc(a) and Dec(a) could be macros (sophisticated string substitutions with parameters) that just expand to a=a+1 and so forth...
I think that the original justifications for some of the modify-in-place operators invented in the past (e.g. bit-wise masking and so forth) is that it saves an optimising compiler from having to work out that the answer goes back to the operand location; the hint is in the source.
But the same hint can be useful to the human (well, programmer at any rate) reader.