[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
## Re: i+++j

**From**: |
Ben Abbott |

**Subject**: |
Re: i+++j |

**Date**: |
Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:01:35 -0500 |

On Feb 29, 2012, at 3:48 PM, Muhali wrote:
>* In pushing my math limits, I stumbled upon*
>* *
>* i+++j*
>* *
>* octave apparently does this:*
>* *
>* octave:> i=j=0*
>* i = 0*
>* octave:> k=i+++j; disp([i j k]) ;*
>* 1 0 0*
>* octave:> k=i+++j; disp([i j k]) ;*
>* 2 0 1*
>* *
>* that is, doing first i++ and then adding j which always remains 0. It could*
>* be the other way round (leaving i and increasing j). So, is there a*
>* rationale for this, and should it not be as in matlab which does nothing,*
>* not even complain, no matter how many additional +'s are used?*
>* *
Octave is working as intended. The following is parsed the same way.
i=j=0
i = 0
j
j = 0
k = (i++) + j; disp ([i j k]) ;
1 0 0
k = (i++) + j; disp ([i j k]) ;
2 0 1
Ben

**i+++j**, *Muhali*, `2012/02/29`