«

I'm confused by the output of the following code:

public class PP {
public static void main(String[] args) {
int i = 1;
i = i++;
System.out.println(i);
}
}

It outputs 1.

I understand the assignment operator happening before the ++, but I don't
understand why the ++ doesn't increment. I thought the statement should
basically expand to:

i = i;
i = i+1;

but the ++ gets lots somewhere...

Big D wrote:
> I'm confused by the output of the following code:
>
> public class PP {
> public static void main(String[] args) {
> int i = 1;
> i = i++;
> System.out.println(i);
> }
> }
>
> It outputs 1.
>
> I understand the assignment operator happening before the ++, but I don't
> understand why the ++ doesn't increment. I thought the statement should
> basically expand to:
>
> i = i;
> i = i+1;
>
> but the ++ gets lots somewhere...

No, it gets expanded into:

t = i;
i = i + 1;
i = t;

Don' do dat!

--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

Big D wrote:
> I'm confused by the output of the following code:
>
> public class PP {
> public static void main(String[] args) {
> int i = 1;
> i = i++;
> System.out.println(i);
> }
> }
>
> It outputs 1.
>
> I understand the assignment operator happening before the ++, but I don't
> understand why the ++ doesn't increment. I thought the statement should
> basically expand to:
>
> i = i;
> i = i+1;
>
> but the ++ gets lots somewhere...
>

In Java, any side effects of operand evaluation happen before side
effects of the operation that uses the operands. i++ will be completely
evaluated before the assignment of its value to i.

The value of "i++" is, by definition, the value of i prior to the
increment, so the assignment restores the old value of i. The code is
equivalent to:

int temp = i; // record the value of i++, the old value of i
i = i+1; // increment i
i = temp; // assign the value of i++ to i.

Patricia

"John W. Kennedy" <> wrote in message
news:c0ijh.1967$...
> Big D wrote:
>> I'm confused by the output of the following code:
>>
>> public class PP {
>> public static void main(String[] args) {
>> int i = 1;
>> i = i++;
>> System.out.println(i);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> It outputs 1.
>>
>> I understand the assignment operator happening before the ++, but I don't
>> understand why the ++ doesn't increment. I thought the statement should
>> basically expand to:
>>
>> i = i;
>> i = i+1;
>>
>> but the ++ gets lots somewhere...
>
> No, it gets expanded into:
>
> t = i;
> i = i + 1;
> i = t;
>
> Don' do dat!
>
> --
> John W. Kennedy

Holy crap! I hope no one ever asks me to evaluate code like that on a job
interview. I would never write code like that, but I doubt if I'd squirt
that nuance from the top of my head.

Karl Uppiano wrote:
> "John W. Kennedy" <> wrote in message
> news:c0ijh.1967$...
>> Big D wrote:
>>> I'm confused by the output of the following code:
>>>
>>> public class PP {
>>> public static void main(String[] args) {
>>> int i = 1;
>>> i = i++;
>>> System.out.println(i);
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> It outputs 1.
>>>
>>> I understand the assignment operator happening before the ++, but I don't
>>> understand why the ++ doesn't increment. I thought the statement should
>>> basically expand to:
>>>
>>> i = i;
>>> i = i+1;
>>>
>>> but the ++ gets lots somewhere...
>> No, it gets expanded into:
>>
>> t = i;
>> i = i + 1;
>> i = t;
>>
>> Don' do dat!
>>
>> --
>> John W. Kennedy
>
> Holy crap! I hope no one ever asks me to evaluate code like that on a job
> interview. I would never write code like that, but I doubt if I'd squirt
> that nuance from the top of my head.

Java is an improvement over its ancestor, C. In C, the official
interpretation of the code in question is "whatever the compiler feels
like doing". Because Java places such an emphasis on portability, it
sets down rules.

--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

Karl Uppiano wrote:
>
> Holy crap! I hope no one ever asks me to evaluate code like that on a
> job interview. I would never write code like that, but I doubt if I'd
> squirt that nuance from the top of my head.

I'll have to make that an interview question. If you answer anything other
than "I would *never* write code like that", you wouldn't get the job.

"John W. Kennedy" <> wrote in message
news:v8mjh.1600$...
> Karl Uppiano wrote:
>> "John W. Kennedy" <> wrote in message
>> news:c0ijh.1967$...
>>> Big D wrote:
>>>> I'm confused by the output of the following code:
>>>>
>>>> public class PP {
>>>> public static void main(String[] args) {
>>>> int i = 1;
>>>> i = i++;
>>>> System.out.println(i);
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> It outputs 1.
>>>>
>>>> I understand the assignment operator happening before the ++, but I
>>>> don't understand why the ++ doesn't increment. I thought the statement
>>>> should basically expand to:
>>>>
>>>> i = i;
>>>> i = i+1;
>>>>
>>>> but the ++ gets lots somewhere...
>>> No, it gets expanded into:
>>>
>>> t = i;
>>> i = i + 1;
>>> i = t;
>>>
>>> Don' do dat!
>>>
>>> --
>>> John W. Kennedy
>>
>> Holy crap! I hope no one ever asks me to evaluate code like that on a job
>> interview. I would never write code like that, but I doubt if I'd squirt
>> that nuance from the top of my head.
>
> Java is an improvement over its ancestor, C. In C, the official
> interpretation of the code in question is "whatever the compiler feels
> like doing". Because Java places such an emphasis on portability, it sets
> down rules.

That is a Good Thing(TM). I'm not disputing that. But I doubt I could quote
chapter and verse from the JLS off the top of my head. I'm an open-book-test
kind of guy (it's how the real world works anyway. No employer I know of
would require you to work without access to any kind of reference
materials). I'm just sayin'...

"Mike Schilling" <> writes:
>I'll have to make that an interview question. If you answer anything other
>than "I would *never* write code like that", you wouldn't get the job.

Such code might make perfect sense, for example, as part of a
Java compiler test suite.

Karl Uppiano wrote:
> "John W. Kennedy" <> wrote in message
> news:c0ijh.1967$...
>> Big D wrote:
>>> I'm confused by the output of the following code:
>>>
>>> public class PP {
>>> public static void main(String[] args) {
>>> int i = 1;
>>> i = i++;
>>> System.out.println(i);
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> It outputs 1.
>>>
>>> I understand the assignment operator happening before the ++, but I don't
>>> understand why the ++ doesn't increment. I thought the statement should
>>> basically expand to:
>>>
>>> i = i;
>>> i = i+1;
>>>
>>> but the ++ gets lots somewhere...
>> No, it gets expanded into:
>>
>> t = i;
>> i = i + 1;
>> i = t;
>>
>> Don' do dat!
>>
>> --
>> John W. Kennedy
>
> Holy crap! I hope no one ever asks me to evaluate code like that on a job
> interview. I would never write code like that, but I doubt if I'd squirt
> that nuance from the top of my head.
>
>

Variations on the exact effect of various combinations of prefix/postfix
++/-- are frequently asked questions in this newsgroup. I've seen the
questions often enough to remember how to work out the answers. The fact
that the JLS has a very simple, consistent, well-defined model makes
them quite easy to answer.

The only time I've ever coded something like that in Java was when
checking my answers for more complicated cases.

Patricia

Hi, this is not gonna work like you write it. Look if you do i = i++;
it will asign i = i because it evaluates i and after that it
increments.

You should do:

i = ++i;

If you only want to increment "i" then just do:

public static int main(String[] args) {
int i = 1;
i++;
System.out.println("The value of variable i is: " + i );
return 0;
}
}

Output = 'The value of variable i is: 2'

> I'm confused by the output of the following code:
>
> public class PP {
> public static void main(String[] args) {
> int i = 1;
> i = i++;
> System.out.println(i);
> }
> }
>
> It outputs 1.
>
> I understand the assignment operator happening before the ++, but I don't
> understand why the ++ doesn't increment. I thought the statement should
> basically expand to:
>
> i = i;
> i = i+1;
>
> but the ++ gets lots somewhere...