toupper() & tolower() problem?

The following code converts the string copied to uppercase and then to lowercase again.

Code:

---

// Convert a string to uppercase & lowercase

#include <iostream>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <cstring>
#include <cctype>

using namespace std;

int main()
{
 char str[80];
 int i;
 
 strcpy(str, "This is copied to str");
 for(i=0;str[i];i++)
                    str[i]=toupper(str[i]);
 cout << str;
 
 for(i=0;str[i];i++)
                    str[i]=tolower(str[i]);
 
 cout << "\nOriginal str was ( " << str << " )\n\n";
 
system("pause");
return 0;

}

---

The problem is I cannot make it work without a second for loop. I don't want to use the second for loop, instead any other way if possible.

I don't really sure about what am I thinking..
why don't you use, strupper and strlower?

Well it would be very useful if you show me how to do it, as I am a beginner in C++. I have not used strupper and strlower before.

Well the problem lies with your second condition of for loop

it should be i < strlen(str)

your modified code will be like this

Code:

---

for(i=0; i < strlen(str); i++)

---

If you're willing to make more copies of the original string, you can just copy a lowercase version and an uppercase version, all using one loop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiteflags

If you're willing to make more copies of the original string, you can just copy a lowercase version and an uppercase version, all using one loop.

---

that is one point of optimization and others what i can suggest use ++i instead of i++ and user memset.

None of those things are optimizations, and even if they were, strlen being called every iteration makes it irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiteflags

None of those things are optimizations, and even if they were, strlen being called every iteration makes it irrelevant.

---

I don't know how can u say that

for post and pre increment

Quote:

---

"preincrement (++i) adds one to the value of i, then returns i; in contrast, i++ returns i then adds one to it, which in theory results in the creation of a temporary variable storing the value of i before the increment operation was applied". And it means pre increment is better than the post one

---

Guys can't we use the transform function here like the one used in the following code?

Code:

---


#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
#include <cctype>
#include <cstring>
#include <cstdlib>

int main()
{
    char string[100];
    char upString[100];
    char lowString[100];
   
    strcpy(string, "I have a nice red house and you're not gonna take it from me!");
   
    unsigned int stringLength = 0;
    for (unsigned int i = 0; string[i] != '\0'; i++)
        stringLength++;
   
    std::cout << "The original: " << string << "\n\n";
    std::cout << "Now applying transform() to uppercase...\n\n";
   
    std::transform(&string[0], &string[stringLength], &upString[0], toupper);
// This is equal to
// std::transform(string, string + stringLength, upString, toupper);
// but might make more sense
    upString[stringLength] = 0;
   
    std::cout << "upString: " << upString << "\n\n";
    std::cout << "Now applying transform() to lowercase (it's a verb, yes)...\n\n";
   
    std::transform(&string[0], &string[stringLength], &lowString[0], tolower);
    lowString[stringLength] = 0;
   
    std::cout << "lowString: " << lowString << "\n\n";
   
    system("pause");
    return 0;
}

---

>> i dont know how you can say that

What do you think takes more time, counting the number of characters in the string or copying a single integer? Now square that estimate, because you called it for every iteration. Thinking in theory is fine, but you should use common sense first.

>> Guys can't we use the transform function here like the one used in the following code?

What do you think

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RockyMarrone

I don't know how can u say that

for post and pre increment

---

For simple types like ints, the compiler would optimize i++ to ++i for you anyways, but yes, I always use ++i in for loops anyways.

Yes, we should prefer ++i to i++.

No, we should not prefer one over the other. It is a matter of style and where one form fits better than the other. Neither is better than the other.

I see. Thank you.

It matters for non-pointer iterators, so it's a good habit to use ++i, so that ++itr is consistent.

Re:the OP
Just have a seperate buffer for the uppercase and lowercase strings.

Except when you want to do
T a = i++;
So they have different uses.
And usually i++ or ++i does not matter - the compiler can usually optimize such things and the speed impact is usually negligible.

I agree that if you use the result, then the choice is based entirely on that. I'm talking about cases where the result is not used.

The compiler can only optimize if the operator is inline. There is no reason to assume that the compiler will choose to do this for say map iterators. Best to have the same habits for everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

No, we should not prefer one over the other. It is a matter of style and where one form fits better than the other. Neither is better than the other.

---

They don't do the same thing anyway. The only situation that I can think of that they do same thing is when the value of the variable is not used. Like "++i;" or "i++;". In those cases the compiler will optimize, because it is too simple not to do so. You simply don't care about the "pre" vs "pro". You just have an increment.

For custom type (classes) you can have something like this

Code:

---

myClass& operator++() //pre-increment
{
    this->value += 1;
    return *this;
}

myClass operator++(int)  //post-increment
{
    myClass temp(*this);
    this->value += 1;
    return tmp;
}

---

So the post increment will have to make a copy. The compiler will probably not optimize in this case.

So post-increment is guaranteed to be equal or faster.

If you know that they are the same (because they are fundamental types for example) then it is a matter of style. But that is an if. If you see a code that has

Code:

---

for (i=0; i < count; i++) ...

---

then "i" might not be an int. It can be a custom class. In which case the "i++" would probably be wrong.
if you see

Code:

---

for (int i=0; i < count; i++) ...

---

then you know "i" is an int and no problem.

If you don't overload ++ or -- I don't think you will have to worry which one to use...

If you're using i, then it better be an int (or similar). Iterators names should have at least a few characters to them.

Just saying.

The notion that optimizations cannot be done if the the code isn't inline and the compiler cannot see it at the time of instantiation is wrong. There is link-time optimizations that can be done. Both MSVC and GCC supports this.
Habits are a subjective thing, also. One should always adapt habits best to oneself. Always using ++i, for example, is also a subjective thing. Whether we use i++ or ++i when the statement is used on its own is meaningless to debate; it's a preference.
Whether it's an iterator, an object or an integer doesn't matter.

All I am saying is that when using ++i or i++ alone, it is a matter of style.
When you use objects, it still probably does not matter, but even if you want to use ++i, I still do not agree it is a good habit to always use. So ++i is NOT always better than i++ (which was the original statement). They have different uses, so use them accordingly.

Your claim, that MSVC and GCC will eliminate temporaries that are used solely for the return value of a function when a function is called from another file and the result is not used, is hard to believe. It's not an easy optimization to do, and would require two object code functions to be generated for each C function.

++i is always no worse than i++, when the return value is unused. That's the point I'm supporting. Therefor using ++i in such cases is a better habit.

Preference does not exist for new users. Certainly, I have no problem with you using i++ in your code. But for a novice to C, who does not have a preference, it is best to be introduced to the best practice.

I do not claim they will optimize temporaries. I claim they can optimize without seeing the function.
But for the best practice bit, I simply disagree. Habits can cause problems, but they are also individual.

Btw, for that matter, for this code:

Code:

---

#include <iostream>

class Iterator
{
private:
        int m_i;

public:
        Iterator(): m_i(0) {}
        Iterator& operator ++ () { m_i++; return *this; }
        Iterator operator ++ (int) { Iterator temp(*this); m_i++; return temp; }
        bool operator < (int i) { return m_i < i; }
        int operator * () { return m_i; }
};

int main()
{
        for (Iterator it; it < 10; it++)
                std::cout << *it;
        for (Iterator it; it < 10; ++it)
                std::cout << *it;
}

---

I get this assembly output with optimizations (even better with inlining):
00D21010 inc dword ptr [eax]
00D21012 ret

00D21020 mov ecx,dword ptr [edx]
00D21022 mov dword ptr [eax],ecx
00D21024 inc ecx
00D21025 mov dword ptr [edx],ecx
00D21027 ret

Hardly expensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

All I am saying is that when using ++i or i++ alone, it is a matter of style.
When you use objects, it still probably does not matter

---

It may well be the case that even if the relevant optimisations are not performed, and there is actually a penalty in efficiency, that this penalty does not matter because it has a negligible effect compared to the overall execution cost. But since this possible inefficiency can be avoided without obscuring the code in any way, it is a matter of good style to use ++i instead of i++ where the expressions are standalone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

but even if you want to use ++i, I still do not agree it is a good habit to always use. (...) They have different uses, so use them accordingly.

---

I agree, if the expression is not standalone, it may be the case that post-increment is preferable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

So ++i is NOT always better than i++ (which was the original statement).

---

No, the original statement was just a suggestion by RockyMarrone to use ++i instead of i++. The part about it being an optimisation in this case may be misguided, but it was not a statement that ++i is always better than i++. saqib_'s recommendation that we should prefer ++i to i++ probably comes closest, but still the word "prefer" is not so strong as to imply that ++i is always better than i++.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

I do not claim they will optimize temporaries. I claim they can optimize without seeing the function.

---

Are you sure? Such an optimisation sounds like it can change the meaning of the program, since ++i and i++ may well do completely different things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

But for the best practice bit, I simply disagree. Habits can cause problems, but they are also individual.

---

In what way can this particular habit (of using pre-increment instead of post-increment where the choice does not matter other than possible avoidance of needless inefficiency) cause problems?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laserlight

It may well be the case that even if the relevant optimisations are not performed, and there is actually a penalty in efficiency, that this penalty does not matter because it has a negligible effect compared to the overall execution cost. But since this possible inefficiency can be avoided without obscuring the code in any way, it is a matter of good style to use ++i instead of i++ where the expressions are standalone.

---

A good point, and one I do not argue. It may be preferable to use ++i when using objects.

Quote:

---

No, the original statement was just a suggestion by RockyMarrone to use ++i instead of i++. The part about it being an optimisation in this case may be misguided, but it was not a statement that ++i is always better than i++. saqib_'s recommendation that we should prefer ++i to i++ probably comes closest, but still the word "prefer" is not so strong as to imply that ++i is always better than i++.

---

I interpreted the way the conversation was going akin to:
Use only ++i because it was/is better in some way i++, so we should always use it whenever possible.
That is the claim I refute, because that is a matter of style.

Quote:

---

Are you sure? Such an optimisation sounds like it can change the meaning of the program, since ++i and i++ may well do completely different things.

---

I was talking generally, not about removing the returning of a temporary.
The link-time code generation option of MSVC allows the compiler to inline functions in other source files, and after inlining them, it can also perform some more optimizations on that inlined code. GCC also has such an option some time ago.
So the claim that code cannot be optimized unless the compiler can see it is untrue. But any claim that the compiler will and can optimize away the returning of temporaries is mostly likely untrue. I have yet to see such a compiler.

Quote:

---

In what way can this particular habit (of using pre-increment instead of post-increment where the choice does not matter other than possible avoidance of needless inefficiency) cause problems?

---

Sigh. I am voicing an opinion here, not an argument.
Which is better is a matter of much debate, one of which I would rather not get into.
But I do not believe in habits. I believe in free style - allowing the programmer to choose what is best for him or her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

But I do not believe in habits. I believe in free style - allowing the programmer to choose what is best for him or her.

---

Heheh...

Quote:

---

I know all the rules and then I know how to break 'em
And I always know the name of the game.

---

In my opinion, one needs to have some idea of the good habits in order to "free style" properly. Otherwise, the "free style" would just be the exercise of bad habits.

In a Coding Standard at a previous company, I believe this is how they worded that particular issue:

Quote:

---

Prefer pre-increment/decrement operators over post-increment/decrement operators unless you actually need to use a post-increment/decrement.

---

Since ++i and i++ are equally easy to read, using ++i does not fall into the category of premature optimization, and it's always better than or equal to i++ whether the compiler optimizes it or not.

Just because the language is called C++ doesn't mean you should prefer post-increment. :p

Just because ++i is better does not mean you should prefer it over i++.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

Just because ++i is better does not mean you should prefer it over i++.

---

Kindly elaborate, otherwise your statement just sounds like nonsense.

I see it like a debate over C vs C++. Prefer whichever one suits you best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

I see it like a debate over C vs C++. Prefer whichever one suits you best.

---

Then you are just ignoring the facts in order to maintain your unreasonable position.

The facts are that, when the expressions are standalone, pre-increment is no worse than post-increment in terms of efficiency, and can even be better. Therefore, there is no advantage in using post-increment instead of pre-increment in such a context. To say "pick whichever one suits you best" is thus bad advice.

It would be good advice when we are faced between the choice of a standalone use of pre-increment along with another expression, or the combined expression with post-increment, in which case the choice is one of style: do you prefer to have two statements, or a single slightly more complex statement? However, the phrase "just because ++i is better" rules this situation out, since in this situation it is not clear if "++i is better".

Quote:

---

The facts are that, when the expressions are standalone, pre-increment is no worse than post-increment in terms of efficiency, and can even be better. Therefore, there is no advantage in using post-increment instead of pre-increment in such a context. To say "pick whichever one suits you best" is thus bad advice.

---

This is the heart of the discussion.
Neither is better than the other in this context, hence use whatever you think is best suits this context fine, I think.

But honestly, if you wish to pursue this, go right head. I have no desire to continue this.
It is, as it always has been, an opinion. Arguments can go into discussion forever and I always end up on the defending side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

This is the heart of the discussion.
Neither is better than the other in this context

---

What context are you talking about? If you mean the original post, then yes, we have already agreed that standalone pre-increment and post-increment for built-in (and pointer) types result in no difference in efficiency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

hence use whatever you think is best suits this context fine, I think.

---

Assuming that I guessed "this context" correctly, then they both suit this context equally well. Since in the more general case of standalone increment pre-increment could be better and is no worse (assuming normal semantics), it should be appropriate to use the increased consistency to break the tie in favour of pre-increment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

But honestly, if you wish to pursue this, go right head. I have no desire to continue this.

---

You do not even have a desire to respond to this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laserlight

In what way can this particular habit (of using pre-increment instead of post-increment where the choice does not matter other than possible avoidance of needless inefficiency) cause problems?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

It is, as it always has been, an opinion.

---

Of course, it is a matter of style rather than correctness. But style can have an objective basis, or it can be founded upon purely subjective taste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

Arguments can go into discussion forever and I always end up on the defending side.

---

Well, if you did not make such inane statements as the one in post #27 then you would not have to defend them ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

Arguments can go into discussion forever and I always end up on the defending side.

---

Try attacking, too!

What's bad about pre-increments?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saqib_

The following code converts the string copied to uppercase and then to lowercase again.

Code:

---

// Convert a string to uppercase & lowercase

#include <iostream>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <cstring>
#include <cctype>

using namespace std;

int main()
{
 char str[80];
 int i;
 
 strcpy(str, "This is copied to str");
 for(i=0;str[i];i++)
                    str[i]=toupper(str[i]);
 cout << str;
 
 for(i=0;str[i];i++)
                    str[i]=tolower(str[i]);
 
 cout << "\nOriginal str was ( " << str << " )\n\n";
 
system("pause");
return 0;

}

---

The problem is I cannot make it work without a second for loop. I don't want to use the second for loop, instead any other way if possible.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kinshara

I don't really sure about what am I thinking..
why don't you use, strupper and strlower?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saqib_

Well it would be very useful if you show me how to do it, as I am a beginner in C++. I have not used strupper and strlower before.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RockyMarrone

Well the problem lies with your second condition of for loop

it should be i < strlen(str)

your modified code will be like this

Code:

---

for(i=0; i < strlen(str); i++)

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiteflags

If you're willing to make more copies of the original string, you can just copy a lowercase version and an uppercase version, all using one loop.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RockyMarrone

that is one point of optimization and others what i can suggest use ++i instead of i++ and user memset.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiteflags

None of those things are optimizations, and even if they were, strlen being called every iteration makes it irrelevant.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RockyMarrone

I don't know how can u say that

for post and pre increment

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saqib_

Guys can't we use the transform function here like the one used in the following code?

Code:

---


#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
#include <cctype>
#include <cstring>
#include <cstdlib>

int main()
{
    char string[100];
    char upString[100];
    char lowString[100];
   
    strcpy(string, "I have a nice red house and you're not gonna take it from me!");
   
    unsigned int stringLength = 0;
    for (unsigned int i = 0; string[i] != '\0'; i++)
        stringLength++;
   
    std::cout << "The original: " << string << "\n\n";
    std::cout << "Now applying transform() to uppercase...\n\n";
   
    std::transform(&string[0], &string[stringLength], &upString[0], toupper);
// This is equal to
// std::transform(string, string + stringLength, upString, toupper);
// but might make more sense
    upString[stringLength] = 0;
   
    std::cout << "upString: " << upString << "\n\n";
    std::cout << "Now applying transform() to lowercase (it's a verb, yes)...\n\n";
   
    std::transform(&string[0], &string[stringLength], &lowString[0], tolower);
    lowString[stringLength] = 0;
   
    std::cout << "lowString: " << lowString << "\n\n";
   
    system("pause");
    return 0;
}

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiteflags

>> i dont know how you can say that

What do you think takes more time, counting the number of characters in the string or copying a single integer? Now square that estimate, because you called it for every iteration. Thinking in theory is fine, but you should use common sense first.

>> Guys can't we use the transform function here like the one used in the following code?

What do you think

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cpjust

For simple types like ints, the compiler would optimize i++ to ++i for you anyways, but yes, I always use ++i in for loops anyways.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saqib_

Yes, we should prefer ++i to i++.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

No, we should not prefer one over the other. It is a matter of style and where one form fits better than the other. Neither is better than the other.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saqib_

I see. Thank you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Mir

It matters for non-pointer iterators, so it's a good habit to use ++i, so that ++itr is consistent.

Re:the OP
Just have a seperate buffer for the uppercase and lowercase strings.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

Except when you want to do
T a = i++;
So they have different uses.
And usually i++ or ++i does not matter - the compiler can usually optimize such things and the speed impact is usually negligible.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Mir

I agree that if you use the result, then the choice is based entirely on that. I'm talking about cases where the result is not used.

The compiler can only optimize if the operator is inline. There is no reason to assume that the compiler will choose to do this for say map iterators. Best to have the same habits for everything.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C_ntua

They don't do the same thing anyway. The only situation that I can think of that they do same thing is when the value of the variable is not used. Like "++i;" or "i++;". In those cases the compiler will optimize, because it is too simple not to do so. You simply don't care about the "pre" vs "pro". You just have an increment.

For custom type (classes) you can have something like this

Code:

---

myClass& operator++() //pre-increment
{
    this->value += 1;
    return *this;
}

myClass operator++(int)  //post-increment
{
    myClass temp(*this);
    this->value += 1;
    return tmp;
}

---

So the post increment will have to make a copy. The compiler will probably not optimize in this case.

So post-increment is guaranteed to be equal or faster.

If you know that they are the same (because they are fundamental types for example) then it is a matter of style. But that is an if. If you see a code that has

Code:

---

for (i=0; i < count; i++) ...

---

then "i" might not be an int. It can be a custom class. In which case the "i++" would probably be wrong.
if you see

Code:

---

for (int i=0; i < count; i++) ...

---

then you know "i" is an int and no problem.

If you don't overload ++ or -- I don't think you will have to worry which one to use...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Mir

If you're using i, then it better be an int (or similar). Iterators names should have at least a few characters to them.

Just saying.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

The notion that optimizations cannot be done if the the code isn't inline and the compiler cannot see it at the time of instantiation is wrong. There is link-time optimizations that can be done. Both MSVC and GCC supports this.
Habits are a subjective thing, also. One should always adapt habits best to oneself. Always using ++i, for example, is also a subjective thing. Whether we use i++ or ++i when the statement is used on its own is meaningless to debate; it's a preference.
Whether it's an iterator, an object or an integer doesn't matter.

All I am saying is that when using ++i or i++ alone, it is a matter of style.
When you use objects, it still probably does not matter, but even if you want to use ++i, I still do not agree it is a good habit to always use. So ++i is NOT always better than i++ (which was the original statement). They have different uses, so use them accordingly.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Mir

Your claim, that MSVC and GCC will eliminate temporaries that are used solely for the return value of a function when a function is called from another file and the result is not used, is hard to believe. It's not an easy optimization to do, and would require two object code functions to be generated for each C function.

++i is always no worse than i++, when the return value is unused. That's the point I'm supporting. Therefor using ++i in such cases is a better habit.

Preference does not exist for new users. Certainly, I have no problem with you using i++ in your code. But for a novice to C, who does not have a preference, it is best to be introduced to the best practice.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

I do not claim they will optimize temporaries. I claim they can optimize without seeing the function.
But for the best practice bit, I simply disagree. Habits can cause problems, but they are also individual.

Btw, for that matter, for this code:

Code:

---

#include <iostream>

class Iterator
{
private:
        int m_i;

public:
        Iterator(): m_i(0) {}
        Iterator& operator ++ () { m_i++; return *this; }
        Iterator operator ++ (int) { Iterator temp(*this); m_i++; return temp; }
        bool operator < (int i) { return m_i < i; }
        int operator * () { return m_i; }
};

int main()
{
        for (Iterator it; it < 10; it++)
                std::cout << *it;
        for (Iterator it; it < 10; ++it)
                std::cout << *it;
}

---

I get this assembly output with optimizations (even better with inlining):
00D21010 inc dword ptr [eax]
00D21012 ret

00D21020 mov ecx,dword ptr [edx]
00D21022 mov dword ptr [eax],ecx
00D21024 inc ecx
00D21025 mov dword ptr [edx],ecx
00D21027 ret

Hardly expensive.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laserlight

It may well be the case that even if the relevant optimisations are not performed, and there is actually a penalty in efficiency, that this penalty does not matter because it has a negligible effect compared to the overall execution cost. But since this possible inefficiency can be avoided without obscuring the code in any way, it is a matter of good style to use ++i instead of i++ where the expressions are standalone.


I agree, if the expression is not standalone, it may be the case that post-increment is preferable.


No, the original statement was just a suggestion by RockyMarrone to use ++i instead of i++. The part about it being an optimisation in this case may be misguided, but it was not a statement that ++i is always better than i++. saqib_'s recommendation that we should prefer ++i to i++ probably comes closest, but still the word "prefer" is not so strong as to imply that ++i is always better than i++.


Are you sure? Such an optimisation sounds like it can change the meaning of the program, since ++i and i++ may well do completely different things.


In what way can this particular habit (of using pre-increment instead of post-increment where the choice does not matter other than possible avoidance of needless inefficiency) cause problems?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

A good point, and one I do not argue. It may be preferable to use ++i when using objects.


I interpreted the way the conversation was going akin to:
Use only ++i because it was/is better in some way i++, so we should always use it whenever possible.
That is the claim I refute, because that is a matter of style.


I was talking generally, not about removing the returning of a temporary.
The link-time code generation option of MSVC allows the compiler to inline functions in other source files, and after inlining them, it can also perform some more optimizations on that inlined code. GCC also has such an option some time ago.
So the claim that code cannot be optimized unless the compiler can see it is untrue. But any claim that the compiler will and can optimize away the returning of temporaries is mostly likely untrue. I have yet to see such a compiler.


Sigh. I am voicing an opinion here, not an argument.
Which is better is a matter of much debate, one of which I would rather not get into.
But I do not believe in habits. I believe in free style - allowing the programmer to choose what is best for him or her.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laserlight

Heheh...

In my opinion, one needs to have some idea of the good habits in order to "free style" properly. Otherwise, the "free style" would just be the exercise of bad habits.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cpjust

In a Coding Standard at a previous company, I believe this is how they worded that particular issue:


Since ++i and i++ are equally easy to read, using ++i does not fall into the category of premature optimization, and it's always better than or equal to i++ whether the compiler optimizes it or not.

Just because the language is called C++ doesn't mean you should prefer post-increment. :p

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

Just because ++i is better does not mean you should prefer it over i++.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laserlight

Kindly elaborate, otherwise your statement just sounds like nonsense.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

I see it like a debate over C vs C++. Prefer whichever one suits you best.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laserlight

Then you are just ignoring the facts in order to maintain your unreasonable position.

The facts are that, when the expressions are standalone, pre-increment is no worse than post-increment in terms of efficiency, and can even be better. Therefore, there is no advantage in using post-increment instead of pre-increment in such a context. To say "pick whichever one suits you best" is thus bad advice.

It would be good advice when we are faced between the choice of a standalone use of pre-increment along with another expression, or the combined expression with post-increment, in which case the choice is one of style: do you prefer to have two statements, or a single slightly more complex statement? However, the phrase "just because ++i is better" rules this situation out, since in this situation it is not clear if "++i is better".

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

This is the heart of the discussion.
Neither is better than the other in this context, hence use whatever you think is best suits this context fine, I think.

But honestly, if you wish to pursue this, go right head. I have no desire to continue this.
It is, as it always has been, an opinion. Arguments can go into discussion forever and I always end up on the defending side.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laserlight

What context are you talking about? If you mean the original post, then yes, we have already agreed that standalone pre-increment and post-increment for built-in (and pointer) types result in no difference in efficiency.


Assuming that I guessed "this context" correctly, then they both suit this context equally well. Since in the more general case of standalone increment pre-increment could be better and is no worse (assuming normal semantics), it should be appropriate to use the increased consistency to break the tie in favour of pre-increment.


You do not even have a desire to respond to this?



Of course, it is a matter of style rather than correctness. But style can have an objective basis, or it can be founded upon purely subjective taste.


Well, if you did not make such inane statements as the one in post #27 then you would not have to defend them ;)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyberfish

Try attacking, too!

What's bad about pre-increments?

---

Just thought I'd line up all of the posts on a single page....:D

And that is funny, because...?

Assalam-O-Alaikum.

Code:

---

struct Edge
        {
                CString Linked_MAC;
                int    Weight;

                        Edge  *Next; 

        }*Edge_Head;


        struct Node
        {
                CString MAC_Address;
                Edge  *Link;

                Node  *Next;
       
        }*Node_Head;

---

I am using the above two structs for my 2D Link List

Now i have write a function for destroying list completely but its not working properly!!!!

Code:

---

void CDataStructure::Destroy(void)
{
        Node *traverseN = new Node();
        Node *tempN    = new Node();
        Edge *tempE    = new Edge();
        Edge *traverseE = new Edge();

       
        traverseN = Node_Head;

        while(traverseN != NULL)
        {
                if(traverseN->Link != NULL)
                {
                        traverseE = traverseN->Link;

                        while(traverseE != NULL)
                        {
                                tempE = traverseE;
                                traverseE = traverseE->Next;
                                delete tempE;
                        }
                }

                tempN = traverseN;
                traverseN = traverseN->Next;
                delete tempN;
        }



}

---

Waiting for your suggestionssssss.--------

Thanks in Advance.