I may be mistaken, but I'm think that $c+=1 is actually defined to run the two steps one right after the other, while what is ambiguous in $c++ is the fact that $c will be incremented later.
I do agree on the fact that undefined behaviour does not mean undefined value, that's why it's hard to track.
In reply to Re^5: Why does the first $c evaluate to the incremented value in [$c, $c += $_] ?
by Eily
in thread Why does the first $c evaluate to the incremented value in [$c, $c += $_] ?
by smls
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |