2006/6/6, Robert Cummings <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 09:46, Martin Alterisio wrote: > 2006/6/6, Robert Cummings <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > In C++ they do leave it to the coder, and well, we all know what a mess > > it can be deciphering overloaded operators in C++ (or maybe we ALL > > don't). At any rate, the PHP overlords made a choice, and IMHO the best > > choice. For such a fringe issue I don't see what the argument is all > > about. If you want the functionality you get in C by incrementing a > > char, then use the chr() function on an integer. > > > > > You're right about ++ operator not to be considered a math operator, my > mistake. What I should have said is that the usual connotation and expected > behaviour of ++ and the comparison operators is to give iteration > capabilities to a certain data type, as used in a for statement. For that to > happen certain constrains must be true for these operators, one of them > being: any < ++any, which is not true for the way these operators behave in > php. You must have missed this post: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=php-general&m=114945456908350&w=2
Yes, I haven't read that post. That algorithm has an error, an overflow on a signed char, and that's implementation issue not a design issue. PS: It's a little bit rude to say "you *must* have missed" but I understand that it wasn't your intention.
