Re^7: Why does the first $c evaluate to the incremented value ... (hahaha)

My "lawyer mode" rant was to show that C is playing catch-up in some areas, and that the rules are anything but clear-cut.

I wouldn't consider perl code that the OP wrote, stupid. In fact I might quite possibly have used the same construct...

Comment on Re^7: Why does the first $c evaluate to the incremented value ... (hahaha)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^8: Why does the first $c evaluate to the incremented value ... (check) by Anonymous Monk on Mar 06, 2014 at 03:00 UTC
Its relatively easy to check your code for such constructs because Perl::Critic::Policy is xpaths you can copy this example Perl::Critic::Policy::ValuesAndExpressions::UndefinedBehaviourMaybeQuoteit / $1 not quoted (value not frozen) undefined behaviour	[reply]
Re^8: Why does the first $c evaluate to the incremented value ... (stupid) by tye (Sage) on Mar 05, 2014 at 21:45 UTC
Then you simply need to update your best practices to include "Using a variable in the same statement as you separately modify it is stupid". (Then, when it breaks [as it did] you'll save a lot of time by not trying to convince people that it is a bug. :) - tye	[reply]