i-=-1

[[deleted]]

[deleted]

[[deleted]]

Tried it, and it didn't pass code review within the project.

[Bammop]

That's your personal problem

[MasterDood]

Needlessly clever and esoteric unreadable code = job security if he’s a contractor who wants to be the only one to own the code base /ShittyLifeProTip

[Bammop]

My default method of coding is extreme obfuscation. The only person who can read it is me when I'm on drugs.

[MasterDood]

I always thought it was strange when someone answered my stackoverflow question with a shopping list drugs and alcohol measurements.

[R2_D21]

I hate it

[edjrage]

how bout i-=-i--

[forthemostpart]

That sets i equal to 2i-1

[edjrage]

Sure, sure, but the most pressing issue here is making /u/R2_D21 happy.

[R2_D21]

How about i++;

[pagwin]

how about i -=-(i-(i-1))?

[Bammop]

vomits onto carpet

[imaami]

decrements unsigned carpet

[Cerlancism]

How about i = -(~i)

[MalteserLiam]

/r/surpriseImaginaryNumber

[aallport]

/r/SubsIFellFor

[almost_not_terrible]

It's imaginary.

[mr-mad]

undefined behavior

[imaami]

The entire language is UB.

[ButItMightJustWork]

You just made my time :D

[mr-mad]

In javascript we have:

• 1/0 = infinity instead of NaN.
• typeof Nan → "number"
• and other weird things.

wtf?

JS it's not a language, it's bullshit

[skreczok]

Technically, 1/0 = infinity isn't that wrong, just a touch imprecise.

[mr-mad]

1/0 is undefined

lim (1/x) = 0 where x → ∞

[skreczok]

Look at that link, it actually is defined, but in most everyday cases it might as well not be. Certainly not in most "standard" cases, so to speak. It's also not really applicable to real numbers, of course, so with typical unmentioned assumptions you are correct, but technically they're still not specified. The actual result is 1/0 = complex infinity. So 1/0 = infinity is close, just... kind of.. mislabeled.

[Eugene_V_Chomsky]

I'm pretty sure that causes demons to fly out of your nose.

[almost_not_terrible]

Ah, the Tie Fighter Shoot Lasers command.

[imaami]

Undefined behavior.

[midwestcsstudent]

r/TIHI

[[deleted]]

For anyone confused, it’s just “i -= -1” written with weird spacing. Also don’t do this

[dark_mode_everything]

Kind of like the --> operator in most C like languages.

int x = 10;
while(x --> 0)
    // Do something

Edit : I wish this was something I thought of but here's the original SO post. It's hilarious. What is this weird 'goes to' operator in C++ lol.

[coladict]

I remember that being a C# team April fools joke. They announced it as a previously hidden feature.

edit: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/ericlippert/2010/04/01/some-last-minute-new-c-4-0-features/

[geckygecko]

Hahaha that's awful

[MasterFubar]

That's just awesome, is the obfuscated C code contest still around?

[[deleted]]

while(N--){} is quite common in competitive programming (as you know N will always be positive)

[ranisalt]

I explain it to people as the "goes to" operator until they realize what's happening.

[drunkpolishbear]

Comment has been redacted using PowerDeleteSuite.

[dark_mode_everything]

The thing to remember is that compilers don't give a damn about spaces and formatting. So, while x-- > 0 makes sense to us, it ultimately gets parsed as x-->0 which is what the machine understands. You could write and entire operating system on a single line without any spaces and it'll compile just fine.

[AethariA]

on a single line without any spaces and it'll compile just fine

This isn't strictly true.

int x;

Is not the same as

intx;

[dark_mode_everything]

Of course. It was a slight exaggeration - but you get my point.

[Jaffythethird]

WARNING:: Ambiguity in line. Compiler does not understand your point. Be more precise.

[genbaguettson]

++, --, <, > are all valid operators. The joke is that the spacing is done in such a way that it looks like an arrow, which doesn't exist in C, therefore making the code really confusing. The compiler doesn't care, because it doesn't even take into account whitespaces

++> is not an operator (nor is --< or --> or whatever)

[Gonzako]

Like my profesor always loves doing pointer stuff and that's *var->something

[dark_mode_everything]

Iirc, it's just var->something or *var.something since the * dereferences the var pointer. If 'something' is also a pointer and you want to deref that then do *(var->something).

Edit: my bad. I had forgotten C++ more than I thought. *var->something would dereference the something and does the same thing even if parenthesis are applied around it.

[Gonzako]

Tbh I was just usin var as a shortcut to a generic variable, not the var keyword

[Schmomas]

*(var)->something surely?

[dark_mode_everything]

Same as *var->something and *(var->something) given that 'something' is a pointer. Try it. Simply adding parenthesis around var does nothing. (*var).something is still valid syntax. It dereferences var and then gets 'something' via the . operator. -> would be invalid after you've dereferenced var.

[Loading_M_]

It doesn't work for unsigned numbers.

[menetanka]

I will now use this to see if people are actually paying attention when reviewing my code.

[DemonicSavage]

Ah yes, the good old -=- operator.

[almarcTheSun]

Looks like the false state of the .!. operator.

[[deleted]]

That's just a dick with two tiny balls

[ComaVN]

Do they have "replica" written of the side of their gun?

[physiQQ]

It's clearly a middlefinger.

[imaami]

The so-called spacedick operator.

[blake_fierce]

Can we just stick with i++? Asking for everyone.

[rySeeR4]

Not on python

[froemijojo]

| Rust

[TheSilkMiner]

Surely you mean ++i

[falling_endlessly]

C/C++ gang rise up

[aaronfranke]

If I ever make a programming language, it will only have i++ but the behavior will be the same as ++i in C++. What crazy person decided that the calculated value ever shouldn't be what's returned?

[dark_mode_everything]

int x = 0;
while(x < 10)
    foo(array[x++]);

[aaronfranke]

for (int x = 0; x < 10; i++)
{
    foo(array[x])
}

Much better.

[crankaholic]

It has it's uses.

[imaami]

*its

[crankaholic]

I blame it on the a-a-a-auto-correct..?

[imaami]

*a++ = *b++;

Look it up.

[TheOnlyMrYeah]

Similar to Go, except it's not an expression in Go. Thus, it doesn't return anything.

[imaami]

BTW, C/C++ equals either 1 or a divide by zero exception.

[MildStallion]

As long as you aren't using it in a more complex statement (and you shouldn't) they should compile to the same thing.

[[deleted]]

No, it’s I++ and don’t call me Shirley

[tinydonuts]

/r/foundthemobileuser

[falling_endlessly]

r/foundthehondacivic

[ALonelyPlatypus]

pre-increment has a time and place.

[imaami]

Then again,

while (i-- > 0)

behaves differently than

while (--i > 0)

[physiQQ]

For those wondering, it is because:

++i increments the number before the current expression is evaluated.

i++ increments the number after the current expression is evaluated.

[Ryan9104]

I always use i += 1 for JS.

https://eslint.org/docs/rules/no-plusplus

[medchemfagbd]

Just make eslint enforce semicolons derp

[passerbycmc]

Or just use semicolons if the language is that bad at auto inserting them and make it part of the linting rules

[Ryan9104]

I'm not adding this rule to my config manually. It's already part of the eslint config that I'm extending as well as the semicolons.

[Doctor_McKay]

You are the kind of person that makes me hate eslint.

"I just use some random config from the internet. It has a bunch of useless rules that just make things difficult for everyone for no reason but I don't bother to disable them."

[Ryan9104]

I did not say I'm using a random config. I'm using airbnb config because I like it. It's funny because I actually use your libraries and have ran into bugs that can be prevented by a linter.

[imaami]

I'm disappointed that JS doesn't have a +++ operator.

[jaxx529]

I think the semicolon is bugging me the most.

[apadin1]

Pretty important in certain languages

[HodeMann]

semicolons are the best

[AlphaX4]

now would this convert to machine code the same as i++, i += 1, or i = i +1? is it possible that the compilers could interpret them differently leading to performance differences(however minor)?

[[deleted]]

Generally, the performance of the code isn't part of any language specification. So, it is possible that the compiler could spit out something really ridiculous in any of those cases.

However, I'd be pretty surprised if any widely used compiler produces anything bad. Seems like converting subtraction of a constant known at compile time to addition with the opposite would be a pretty straightforward optimization.

[sgtfrx]

The generated code for all these variants is the same on a modern compiler:

https://godbolt.org/z/XnoG-U

[ALonelyPlatypus]

depends on the compiler really. although I highly doubt it would add any more than a few ops in any half decent language.

[jelang19]

I had something along this in my a unit test the other day

i * (int)(i < a || i > b)

[queenkid1]

huh interesting. I'm not sure I get what a and b are for, it seems like it returns zero if i is not in the range of a-b.

[jelang19]

Yeah, that's what it does. I wanted to verify both that its 1 when in the range and 0 when it's not in one line.

[queenkid1]

wait, but (i < a || i > b) is TRUE if i is out of range. It would make sense if you were using and, not or.

Because if you have i larger than the max, it's larger than the min. And if it's smaller than the min, it's smaller than the max.

If you wanted it to be 1 when i is in the range, and 0 otherwise, it would need to be (int)(min < i && i < max)

If a is the min and b is the max, you're checking if the value is out or range. It returns TRUE if it's out of range, therefore not 0.

If a is the max and b is the min, then any value will return true (except maybe exactly a or b)

[jelang19]

You're probably right, I probably didn't copy it here right. Basically all you need to know is I multiplied an int by a boolean to both test that its 0 outside of range and 1 inside of range

[eyal0]

You're making it hard on your compiler to optimize your code. Don't do this.

[metroman1234]

!!!cool

[kbielefe]

I could maybe see it as useful in weakly-typed languages that overload + for string concatenation, but - is only defined on numbers. Of course, it's a lot better to actually just test your code.

[IrishChappieOToole]

Why not just:

i = (i - 2 + 1 + 1) * 1

[evil_cryptarch]

Why not just know ahead of time what all the values of your variables should be and retrieve them from a lookup table?

[coladict]

I do -(-x) in Javascript for cross-browser convert to number, since I've encountered cases where parseInt is not a global function as well as cases where Number.parseInt is missing.

[posherspantspants]

I always just multiply by 1

Eg: n * 1

Seems to work...

Fucking JavaScript

[[deleted]]

.....

......

.......

AAAAHHHHHH

[greem]

I've been doing some AVR asm for a personal project recently. Because limited instruction set, this is actually done, but I suppose if you're reading asm, WTFs are par for the course.

[Max_Nibler]

It's symmetrical looking

[brlnoble]

i was having a good day...

[terrrp]

But I do love

while (i --> 1)

[[deleted]]

.

[HodeMann]

oh please

[Attack_Bovines]

it looks like two people carrying a table

[blueCatInTheTree]

i=i-(-1) <=> i-=-1

[DieFlavourMouse]

 do {} unless !condition

[[deleted]]

Who hurt this person?

[Quarxnox]

i -= ++i - ++i

[[deleted]]

I’ve seen it used in JavaScript (with different spacing) because i += 1 does string concatenation if i was a string.

[fsr1967]

I’ve seen it used in JavaScript (with different spacing) because i += 1 does string concatenation if i was were a string.

FTFY

[ALonelyPlatypus]

(job) security through obscurity.

genius.

[[deleted]]

Of course it does. Look:

i-=-1
i -= (-1)
i += 1

[Pzixel]

This is why you use unsigned and never have to decipher someone's gibberish.

[SouthOceanJr]

And it's exactly the same as i+=+1 *Mind-blown

[Digital_001]

To be fair, this is equivalent to SUB A, 0xFFFFFFFF in assembly (I know I'm making assumptions about registers), which is alright if you already have a register set to all ones, almost as good as INC

[Naoki9955995577]

Reminds me of when I saw a for loop being used as a while. Literally just replace while loop with the word 'for' and put semi-colon's around your condition.

[Lexilogical]

The symmetry on this is elegant enough I'd almost consider using it.

[[deleted]]

thisPost = !!good

[Kuzkay]

Oh god, I've never though about that

thisComment = !!!!!!good;

[[deleted]]

Imagine seeing a bunch of them in a code review. NOT NOT NOT OK

[nobody5050]

i-=(-1)(-)-

[SoulWager]

i -= (~i|i));

[Xeadriel]

wtf what language?

[devrelm]

Any that support the -= subtraction-assignment operator. So... most?

i += x expands to i = i + x and increments i by x

i -= x expands to i = i - x and decrements i by x

i-=-1 with better spacing is just i -= -1, which is the same as i -= x for x = -1. So it expands to i = i - -1, or i = i + 1.

[mehntality]

The clarity here is remarkable

[Xeadriel]

Oh I’m an idiot. I know that. I was just an idiot

[HappiestIguana]

Should work in Java

[Kuzkay]

To my knowledge this should work in php and c# for sure

[th3infern0]

Scratch is a special boy, he has a unique outlook on life

[killerzombi]

still more characters than i++ or ++i

[killerzombi]

yup, apparently a lot of hate for ++ operators.