>>>>>++i
and the interpreter replies
0
Don't you think it is misleading when you expect a variable to
increment?
Terribly. So stop expecting it to increment :)
Seriously, --i is also valid Python. Both expressions apply two unary
operators to a name. Would you have these become illegal, or start to
mean increment/decrement? Either change would break years of backwards
compatibility.
It looks like Python behaves more consistantly than C/C++/Java :)
By adding plus/minus signs, you get consistant behavior:
x = 42
+x
42 ++x
42 +++x
42 ++++x
42 # ad infinitum
In C-like languages, you get
x: 42
+x: 42
++x: 43
+++x: invalid lvalue in increment -> compile fails
++++x: 45
+++++x: invalid lvalue in increment -> compile fails
++++++x: 48
(actually, g++ accepted this funky syntax, but gcc choked on it,
so linguistic sludge is more tolerable in C++ than in C)
Looks like the OP should be over on c.l.c++ griping about the
inconsistancy of the "unary +" and "unary -" operators ;)
-tkc
(still waiting for my brain to kick in on a Sat. morning...)