If I have a for loop which is nested within another, how can I efficiently come out of both loops (inner and outer) in the quickest possible way?
I don't want to have to use a boolean and then have to say go to another method, but rather just to execute the first line of code after the outer loop.
What is a quick and nice way of going about this?
I was thinking that exceptions aren't cheap/should only be thrown in a truly exceptional condition etc. Hence I don't think this solution would be good from a performance perspective.
I don't feel it it is right to take advantage of the newer features in .NET (anon methods) to do something which is pretty fundamental.
Well, goto, but that is ugly, and not always possible. You can also place the loops into a method (or an anon-method) and use return to exit back to the main code.
// goto
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < 100; j++)
{
goto Foo; // yeuck!
}
}
Foo:
Console.WriteLine("Hi");
vs:
// anon-method
Action work = delegate
{
for (int x = 0; x < 100; x++)
{
for (int y = 0; y < 100; y++)
{
return; // exits anon-method
}
}
};
work(); // execute anon-method
Console.WriteLine("Hi");
Note that in C# 7 we should get "local functions", which (syntax tbd etc) means it should work something like:
// local function (declared **inside** another method)
void Work()
{
for (int x = 0; x < 100; x++)
{
for (int y = 0; y < 100; y++)
{
return; // exits local function
}
}
};
Work(); // execute local function
Console.WriteLine("Hi");
C# adaptation of approach often used in C - set value of outer loop's variable outside of loop conditions (i.e. for loop using int variable INT_MAX -1 is often good choice):
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < 100; j++)
{
if (exit_condition)
{
// cause the outer loop to break:
// use i = INT_MAX - 1; otherwise i++ == INT_MIN < 100 and loop will continue
i = int.MaxValue - 1;
Console.WriteLine("Hi");
// break the inner loop
break;
}
}
// if you have code in outer loop it will execute after break from inner loop
}
As note in code says break will not magically jump to next iteration of the outer loop - so if you have code outside of inner loop this approach requires more checks. Consider other solutions in such case.
This approach works with for and while loops but does not work for foreach. In case of foreach you won't have code access to the hidden enumerator so you can't change it (and even if you could IEnumerator doesn't have some "MoveToEnd" method).
Acknowledgments to inlined comments' authors:
i = INT_MAX - 1 suggestion by Meta
for/foreach comment by ygoe.
Proper IntMax by jmbpiano
remark about code after inner loop by blizpasta
This solution does not apply to C#
For people who found this question via other languages, Javascript, Java, and D allows labeled breaks and continues:
outer: while(fn1())
{
while(fn2())
{
if(fn3()) continue outer;
if(fn4()) break outer;
}
}
Use a suitable guard in the outer loop. Set the guard in the inner loop before you break.
bool exitedInner = false;
for (int i = 0; i < N && !exitedInner; ++i) {
.... some outer loop stuff
for (int j = 0; j < M; ++j) {
if (sometest) {
exitedInner = true;
break;
}
}
if (!exitedInner) {
... more outer loop stuff
}
}
Or better yet, abstract the inner loop into a method and exit the outer loop when it returns false.
for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i) {
.... some outer loop stuff
if (!doInner(i, N, M)) {
break;
}
... more outer loop stuff
}
Don't quote me on this, but you could use goto as suggested in the MSDN. There are other solutions, as including a flag that is checked in each iteration of both loops. Finally you could use an exception as a really heavyweight solution to your problem.
GOTO:
for ( int i = 0; i < 10; ++i ) {
for ( int j = 0; j < 10; ++j ) {
// code
if ( break_condition ) goto End;
// more code
}
}
End: ;
Condition:
bool exit = false;
for ( int i = 0; i < 10 && !exit; ++i ) {
for ( int j = 0; j < 10 && !exit; ++j ) {
// code
if ( break_condition ) {
exit = true;
break; // or continue
}
// more code
}
}
Exception:
try {
for ( int i = 0; i < 10 && !exit; ++i ) {
for ( int j = 0; j < 10 && !exit; ++j ) {
// code
if ( break_condition ) {
throw new Exception()
}
// more code
}
}
catch ( Exception e ) {}
Is it possible to refactor the nested for loop into a private method? That way you could simply 'return' out of the method to exit the loop.
It seems to me like people dislike a goto statement a lot, so I felt the need to straighten this out a bit.
I believe the 'emotions' people have about goto eventually boil down to understanding of code and (misconceptions) about possible performance implications. Before answering the question, I will therefore first go into some of the details on how it's compiled.
As we all know, C# is compiled to IL, which is then compiled to assembler using an SSA compiler. I'll give a bit of insights into how this all works, and then try to answer the question itself.
From C# to IL
First we need a piece of C# code. Let's start simple:
foreach (var item in array)
{
// ...
break;
// ...
}
I'll do this step by step to give you a good idea of what happens under the hood.
First translation: from foreach to the equivalent for loop (Note: I'm using an array here, because I don't want to get into details of IDisposable -- in which case I'd also have to use an IEnumerable):
for (int i=0; i<array.Length; ++i)
{
var item = array[i];
// ...
break;
// ...
}
Second translation: the for and break is translated into an easier equivalent:
int i=0;
while (i < array.Length)
{
var item = array[i];
// ...
break;
// ...
++i;
}
And third translation (this is the equivalent of the IL code): we change break and while into a branch:
int i=0; // for initialization
startLoop:
if (i >= array.Length) // for condition
{
goto exitLoop;
}
var item = array[i];
// ...
goto exitLoop; // break
// ...
++i; // for post-expression
goto startLoop;
While the compiler does these things in a single step, it gives you insight into the process. The IL code that evolves from the C# program is the literal translation of the last C# code. You can see for yourself here: https://dotnetfiddle.net/QaiLRz (click 'view IL')
Now, one thing you have observed here is that during the process, the code becomes more complex. The easiest way to observe this is by the fact that we needed more and more code to ackomplish the same thing. You might also argue that foreach, for, while and break are actually short-hands for goto, which is partly true.
From IL to Assembler
The .NET JIT compiler is an SSA compiler. I won't go into all the details of SSA form here and how to create an optimizing compiler, it's just too much, but can give a basic understanding about what will happen. For a deeper understanding, it's best to start reading up on optimizing compilers (I do like this book for a brief introduction: http://ssabook.gforge.inria.fr/latest/book.pdf ) and LLVM (llvm.org).
Every optimizing compiler relies on the fact that code is easy and follows predictable patterns. In the case of FOR loops, we use graph theory to analyze branches, and then optimize things like cycli in our branches (e.g. branches backwards).
However, we now have forward branches to implement our loops. As you might have guessed, this is actually one of the first steps the JIT is going to fix, like this:
int i=0; // for initialization
if (i >= array.Length) // for condition
{
goto endOfLoop;
}
startLoop:
var item = array[i];
// ...
goto endOfLoop; // break
// ...
++i; // for post-expression
if (i >= array.Length) // for condition
{
goto startLoop;
}
endOfLoop:
// ...
As you can see, we now have a backward branch, which is our little loop. The only thing that's still nasty here is the branch that we ended up with due to our break statement. In some cases, we can move this in the same way, but in others it's there to stay.
So why does the compiler do this? Well, if we can unroll the loop, we might be able to vectorize it. We might even be able to proof that there's just constants being added, which means our whole loop could vanish into thin air. To summarize: by making the patterns predictable (by making the branches predictable), we can proof that certain conditions hold in our loop, which means we can do magic during the JIT optimization.
However, branches tend to break those nice predictable patterns, which is something optimizers therefore kind-a dislike. Break, continue, goto - they all intend to break these predictable patterns- and are therefore not really 'nice'.
You should also realize at this point that a simple foreach is more predictable then a bunch of goto statements that go all over the place. In terms of (1) readability and (2) from an optimizer perspective, it's both the better solution.
Another thing worth mentioning is that it's very relevant for optimizing compilers to assign registers to variables (a process called register allocation). As you might know, there's only a finite number of registers in your CPU and they are by far the fastest pieces of memory in your hardware. Variables used in code that's in the inner-most loop, are more likely to get a register assigned, while variables outside of your loop are less important (because this code is probably hit less).
Help, too much complexity... what should I do?
The bottom line is that you should always use the language constructs you have at your disposal, which will usually (implictly) build predictable patterns for your compiler. Try to avoid strange branches if possible (specifically: break, continue, goto or a return in the middle of nothing).
The good news here is that these predictable patterns are both easy to read (for humans) and easy to spot (for compilers).
One of those patterns is called SESE, which stands for Single Entry Single Exit.
And now we get to the real question.
Imagine that you have something like this:
// a is a variable.
for (int i=0; i<100; ++i)
{
for (int j=0; j<100; ++j)
{
// ...
if (i*j > a)
{
// break everything
}
}
}
The easiest way to make this a predictable pattern is to simply eliminate the if completely:
int i, j;
for (i=0; i<100 && i*j <= a; ++i)
{
for (j=0; j<100 && i*j <= a; ++j)
{
// ...
}
}
In other cases you can also split the method into 2 methods:
// Outer loop in method 1:
for (i=0; i<100 && processInner(i); ++i)
{
}
private bool processInner(int i)
{
int j;
for (j=0; j<100 && i*j <= a; ++j)
{
// ...
}
return i*j<=a;
}
Temporary variables? Good, bad or ugly?
You might even decide to return a boolean from within the loop (but I personally prefer the SESE form because that's how the compiler will see it and I think it's cleaner to read).
Some people think it's cleaner to use a temporary variable, and propose a solution like this:
bool more = true;
for (int i=0; i<100; ++i)
{
for (int j=0; j<100; ++j)
{
// ...
if (i*j > a) { more = false; break; } // yuck.
// ...
}
if (!more) { break; } // yuck.
// ...
}
// ...
I personally am opposed to this approach. Look again on how the code is compiled. Now think about what this will do with these nice, predictable patterns. Get the picture?
Right, let me spell it out. What will happen is that:
The compiler will write out everything as branches.
As an optimization step, the compiler will do data flow analysis in an attempt to remove the strange more variable that only happens to be used in control flow.
If succesful, the variable more will be eliminated from the program, and only branches remain. These branches will be optimized, so you will get only a single branch out of the inner loop.
If unsuccesful, the variable more is definitely used in the inner-most loop, so if the compiler won't optimize it away, it has a high chance to be allocated to a register (which eats up valuable register memory).
So, to summarize: the optimizer in your compiler will go into a hell of a lot of trouble to figure out that more is only used for the control flow, and in the best case scenario will translate it to a single branch outside of the outer for loop.
In other words, the best case scenario is that it will end up with the equivalent of this:
for (int i=0; i<100; ++i)
{
for (int j=0; j<100; ++j)
{
// ...
if (i*j > a) { goto exitLoop; } // perhaps add a comment
// ...
}
// ...
}
exitLoop:
// ...
My personal opinion on this is quite simple: if this is what we intended all along, let's make the world easier for both the compiler and readability, and write that right away.
tl;dr:
Bottom line:
Use a simple condition in your for loop if possible. Stick to the high-level language constructs you have at your disposal as much as possible.
If everything fails and you're left with either goto or bool more, prefer the former.
You asked for a combination of quick, nice, no use of a boolean, no use of goto, and C#. You've ruled out all possible ways of doing what you want.
The most quick and least ugly way is to use a goto.
factor into a function/method and use early return, or rearrange your loops into a while-clause. goto/exceptions/whatever are certainly not appropriate here.
def do_until_equal():
foreach a:
foreach b:
if a==b: return
The cleanest, shortest, and most reusable way is a self invoked anonymous function:
no goto
no label
no temporary variable
no named function
One line shorter than the top answer with anonymous method.
new Action(() =>
{
for (int x = 0; x < 100; x++)
{
for (int y = 0; y < 100; y++)
{
return; // exits self invoked lambda expression
}
}
})();
Console.WriteLine("Hi");
Sometimes nice to abstract the code into it's own function and than use an early return - early returns are evil though : )
public void GetIndexOf(Transform transform, out int outX, out int outY)
{
outX = -1;
outY = -1;
for (int x = 0; x < Columns.Length; x++)
{
var column = Columns[x];
for (int y = 0; y < column.Transforms.Length; y++)
{
if(column.Transforms[y] == transform)
{
outX = x;
outY = y;
return;
}
}
}
}
Since I first saw break in C a couple of decades back, this problem has vexed me. I was hoping some language enhancement would have an extension to break which would work thus:
break; // our trusty friend, breaks out of current looping construct.
break 2; // breaks out of the current and it's parent looping construct.
break 3; // breaks out of 3 looping constructs.
break all; // totally decimates any looping constructs in force.
I've seen a lot of examples that use "break" but none that use "continue".
It still would require a flag of some sort in the inner loop:
while( some_condition )
{
// outer loop stuff
...
bool get_out = false;
for(...)
{
// inner loop stuff
...
get_out = true;
break;
}
if( get_out )
{
some_condition=false;
continue;
}
// more out loop stuff
...
}
The easiest way to end a double loop would be directly ending the first loop
string TestStr = "The frog jumped over the hill";
char[] KillChar = {'w', 'l'};
for(int i = 0; i < TestStr.Length; i++)
{
for(int E = 0; E < KillChar.Length; E++)
{
if(KillChar[E] == TestStr[i])
{
i = TestStr.Length; //Ends First Loop
break; //Ends Second Loop
}
}
}
Loops can be broken using custom conditions in the loop, allowing as to have clean code.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
bool isBreak = false;
for (int i = 0; ConditionLoop(isBreak, i, 500); i++)
{
Console.WriteLine($"External loop iteration {i}");
for (int j = 0; ConditionLoop(isBreak, j, 500); j++)
{
Console.WriteLine($"Inner loop iteration {j}");
// This code is only to produce the break.
if (j > 3)
{
isBreak = true;
}
}
Console.WriteLine("The code after the inner loop will be executed when breaks");
}
Console.ReadKey();
}
private static bool ConditionLoop(bool isBreak, int i, int maxIterations) => i < maxIterations && !isBreak;
With this code we ontain the following output:
External loop iteration 0
Inner loop iteration 0
Inner loop iteration 1
Inner loop iteration 2
Inner loop iteration 3
Inner loop iteration 4
The code after the inner loop will be executed when breaks
I remember from my student days that it was said it's mathematically provable that you can do anything in code without a goto (i.e. there is no situation where goto is the only answer). So, I never use goto's (just my personal preference, not suggesting that i'm right or wrong)
Anyways, to break out of nested loops I do something like this:
var isDone = false;
for (var x in collectionX) {
for (var y in collectionY) {
for (var z in collectionZ) {
if (conditionMet) {
// some code
isDone = true;
}
if (isDone)
break;
}
if (isDone)
break;
}
if (isDone)
break;
}
... i hope that helps for those who like me are anti-goto "fanboys" :)
That's how I did it. Still a workaround.
foreach (var substring in substrings) {
//To be used to break from 1st loop.
int breaker=1;
foreach (char c in substring) {
if (char.IsLetter(c)) {
Console.WriteLine(line.IndexOf(c));
\\setting condition to break from 1st loop.
breaker=9;
break;
}
}
if (breaker==9) {
break;
}
}
Another option which is not mentioned here which is both clean and does not rely on newer .NET features is to consolidate the double loop into a single loop over the product. Then inside the loop the values of the counters can be calculated using simple math:
int n; //set to max of first loop
int m; //set to max of second loop
for (int k = 0; k < n * m; k++)
{
//calculate the values of i and j as if there was a double loop
int i = k / m;
int j = k % m;
if(exitCondition)
{
break;
}
}
People often forget that the 2nd statement of the for loops themselves are the break conditions, so there is no need to have additional ifs within the code.
Something like this works:
bool run = true;
int finalx = 0;
int finaly = 0;
for (int x = 0; x < 100 && run; x++)
{
finalx = x;
for (int y = 0; y < 100 && run; y++)
{
finaly = y;
if (x == 10 && y == 50) { run = false; }
}
}
Console.WriteLine("x: " + finalx + " y: " + finaly); // outputs 'x: 10 y: 50'
just use return inside the inner loop and the two loops will be exited...
I would just set a flag.
var breakOuterLoop = false;
for (int i = 0; i < 30; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < 30; j++)
{
if (condition)
{
breakOuterLoop = true;
break;
}
}
if (breakOuterLoop){
break;
}
}
Throw a custom exception which goes out outter loop.
It works for for,foreach or while or any kind of loop and any language that uses try catch exception block
try
{
foreach (object o in list)
{
foreach (object another in otherList)
{
// ... some stuff here
if (condition)
{
throw new CustomExcpetion();
}
}
}
}
catch (CustomException)
{
// log
}
bool breakInnerLoop=false
for(int i=0;i<=10;i++)
{
for(int J=0;i<=10;i++)
{
if(i<=j)
{
breakInnerLoop=true;
break;
}
}
if(breakInnerLoop)
{
continue
}
}
As i see you accepted the answer in which the person refers you goto statement, where in modern programming and in expert opinion goto is a killer, we called it a killer in programming which have some certain reasons, which i will not discuss it over here at this point, but the solution of your question is very simple, you can use a Boolean flag in this kind of scenario like i will demonstrate it in my example:
for (; j < 10; j++)
{
//solution
bool breakme = false;
for (int k = 1; k < 10; k++)
{
//place the condition where you want to stop it
if ()
{
breakme = true;
break;
}
}
if(breakme)
break;
}
simple and plain. :)
Did you even look at the break keyword? O.o
This is just pseudo-code, but you should be able to see what I mean:
<?php
for(...) {
while(...) {
foreach(...) {
break 3;
}
}
}
If you think about break being a function like break(), then it's parameter would be the number of loops to break out of. As we are in the third loop in the code here, we can break out of all three.
Manual: http://php.net/break
I think unless you want to do the "boolean thing" the only solution is actually to throw. Which you obviously shouldn't do..!
This question already has answers here:
Variable scope confusion in C#
(4 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
The code below produces this error in Visual Studio 2012; "A local variable named 'x' cannot be declared in this scope because it would give a different meaning to 'x', which is already used in a 'child' scope to denote something else"
for (int x = 0; x < 9; x++)
{
//something
}
int x = 0;
However. When modified as below I get this error; "The name 'x' does not exist in the current context"
for (int x = 0; x < 9; x++)
{
//something
}
x = 0;
Is this a huge contradiction or am I missing something?
So far no one except Rik has put their finger on the correct answer.
Read the error messages again, very carefully. They are clearly explaining the errors. The first error is:
A local variable named 'x' cannot be declared in this scope because it would give a different meaning to 'x', which is already used in a 'child' scope to denote something else
Actually read the error message. It says it is illegal to use the same name to mean two different things. The error has nothing to do with the scope of the outer x per se; it has to do with the fact that x is used to mean two things in the same outer scope.
As Rik points out, the purpose of this rule is to avoid situations where the developer becomes confused about the meaning of x. A given name almost always means the same thing throughout a block. (There are some subtle exceptions but let's not go into those today.) This rule also helps prevent bugs introduced by re-ordering statements within a method and thereby subtly changing the meaning of the names. If the meaning of a name is invariant within a block then code edits within that block can be made with confidence.
A number of the answers say that scopes are not allowed to overlap. Yes they are. Local variable scopes are not allowed to overlap, but scopes are allowed to overlap. For example:
class C
{
int x;
void M()
{
int y = this.x;
for(int x = 0; x < 10; ++x) {}
}
}
Perfectly legal even though there are two things called x in scope at the same time. But this is not legal:
class C
{
int x;
void M()
{
int y = x; // Means this.x
for(int x = 0; x < 10; ++x) {} // means local x
}
}
Now the simple name x means two different things inside the body of M, and that is what is illegal. Again, make sure you understand this: using the same name to mean two things in the same scope is what is illegal. It is not illegal to overlap scopes.
Now your second error:
"The name 'x' does not exist in the current context"
The name x is only valid inside the for statement. A for statement:
for (declarations ; condition ; increment ) body
is logically equivalent (modulo break and continue behaviour)to
{
declarations;
while(condition)
{
body
increment
}
}
Note the outer braces. Anything in that declaration can be used throughout the condition, body or increment, but is not in scope outside.
The first is an error because it is equivalent to this:
int x;
for (int x = 0; x < 9; x++)
{
//something
// 'x' is ambiguous here
}
x = 0;
The way variable declarations work in C#, that is the same as your first sample.
The second is an error because the 'x' variable defined in the loop is only valid in the loop.
C# is stopping you from creating a confusing situation in which it is easy to make mistakes about what x actually refers to.
It's not a contradiction. the int x you define in the for is scoped to the for loop, meaning:
for (int x = 0; x < 9; x++)
{
//x is only alive here.
}
//you can't use it here.
however you can't create yet another x variable in a parent scope (that is, the method scope):
public void MyMethod()
{
int x = 0; //method-scoped variable.
for (int x = 0; x < 9; x++) //for-scoped variable, with the same name, invalid.
{
//here you have 2 "x", which one to use? invalid.
}
//the first x is available here
}
It's due to child scope.
Following will not work as both i's are in same scope
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine(i);
}
int i = 10;
Console.WriteLine(i);
Following will also not work as both i's are still in same scope
{
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine(i);
}
}
int i = 10;
Console.WriteLine(i);
Following will work just fine
{
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine(i);
}
}
{
int i = 10;
Console.WriteLine(i);
}
A series of statements surrounded by curly braces form a block of code. A method body is one example of a code block. Code blocks often follow a control statement. Variables or constants declared within a code block are only available to statements within the same code block.
Check this link: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173143%28v=vs.80%29.aspx
Doing this:
for (int x = 0; x < 9; x++)
{
//something
}
x = 0;
Is detected by the semantic analyzer as an error, because x is no longer available outside the for loop.
Although when you do an int x inside of an inner block and declare a int x outside of the inner block, the compiler warns you only about a possible error in your semantics.
for (int x = 0; x < 9; x++)
{
//something
}
//theoretically allowed, but the C# compiler identifies it as an error.
int x = 0; //caution x declare before
If you are intrigued by this, the explanation is quite simple:
As stated in the section 3.7 of the language spec. “The scope of a local variable declared in a local-variable-declaration (8.5.1) is the block in the which the declaration occurs”.
The scope of x is therefore the entire function where you declared it, and that means that the declaration/use outside the for loop is a re=use, and therefore is not allowed.
This behavior is intended to make incorrect re-use of variable names (such as in a cut and paste) less likely.
Regards.
Variable x is our of scope because it was declared in the loop. If you anyway want to use the same variable again, try this - (Not recommended though - standards wise)
int x = 0;
for (x = 0; x < 9; x++){
//something
}
x = 0;
This question already has answers here:
What is the difference between prefix and postfix operators?
(13 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
For example, i++ can be written as i=i+1.
Similarly, how can ++i be written in the form as shown above for i++?
Is it the same way as of i++ or if not please specify the right way to write ++i in the form as shown above for i++?
You actually have it the wrong way around:
i=i+1 is closer to ++i than to i++
The reason for this is that it anyway only makes a difference with surrounding expressions, like:
j=++i gives j the same value as j=(i+=1) and j=(i=i+1)
There's a whole lot more to the story though:
1) To be on the same ground, let's look at the difference of pre-increment and post-increment:
j=i++ vs j=++i
The first one is post-increment (value is returned and "post"=afterwards incremented), the later one is pre-increment (value is "pre"=before incremented, and then returned)
So, (multi statement) equivalents would be:
j=i; i=i+1; and i=i+1; j=i; respectively
This makes the whole thing very interesting with (theoretical) expressions like j=++i++ (which are illegal in standard C though, as you may not change one variable in a single statement multiple times)
It's also interesting with regards to memory fences, as modern processors can do so called out of order execution, which means, you might code in a specific order, and it might be executed in a totally different order (though, there are certain rules to this of course). Compilers may also reorder your code, so the 2 statements actually end up being the same at the end.
-
2) Depending on your compiler, the expressions will most likely be really the same after compilation/optimization etc.
If you have a standalone expression of i++; and ++i; the compiler will most likely transform it to the intermediate 'ADD' asm command. You can try it yourself with most compilers, e.g. with gcc it's -s to get the intermediate asm output.
Also, for many years now, compilers tend to optimize the very common construct of
for (int i = 0; i < whatever; i++)
as directly translating i++ in this case would spoil an additional register (and possible lead to register spilling) and lead to unneeded instructions (we're talking about stuff here, which is so minor, that it really won't matter unless the loop runs trillion of times with a single asm instruction or the like)
-
3) Back to your original question, the whole thing is a precedence question, as the 2 statements can be expressed as (this time a bit more exact than the upper explanation):
something = i++ => temp = i; i = i + 1; something = temp
and
something = ++i => i = i + 1; something = i
( here you can also see why the first variant would theoretically lead to more register spilled and more instructions )
As you can see here, the first expression can not easily be altered in a way I think would satisfy your question, as it's not possible to express it using precedence symbols, e.g. parentheses, or, simpler to understand, a block). For the second one though, that's easy:
++i => (++i) => { i = i + 1; return i } (pseudo code)
for the first one that would be
i++ => { return i; i = i + 1 } (pseudo code again)
As you can see, this won't work.
Hope I helped you clear up your question, if anything may need clarification or I made an error, feel free to point it out.
Technically j = ++i is the same as
j = (i = i + 1);
and j = i++; is the same as
j = i;
i = i + 1;
You can avoid writing this as two lines with this trick, though ++ doesn't do this.
j = (i = i + 1) - 1;
++i and i++ both have identical results if written as a stand alone statement (as opposed to chaining it with other operations.
That result is also identical to i += 1 and to i = i + 1.
The difference only comes in if you start using the ++i and i++ inside a larger expression.
The real meaning of this pre and post increment, you 'll know only about where you are using that.?
Main difference is
pre condition will increment first before execute any statement.
Post condition will increment after the statement executed.
Here I've mention a simple example to you.
void main()
{
int i=0, value;
value=i++; // Here I've used post increment. Here value of i will be assigned first then It'll be incremented.
// After this statement, now Value will hold the value 0 and i will hold the value 1
// Now I'm going to use pre increment
value=++i; // Here i've used pre increment. So i will be incremented first then value will be assigned to value.
// After this statement, Now value will hold the value 2 and i will hold the value 2
}
This may be done using anonymous methods:
int i = 5;
int j = i++;
is equivalent to:
int i = 5;
int j = new Func<int>(() => { int temp = i; i = i + 1; return temp; })();
However, it would make more sense if it were expanded as a named method with a ref parameter (which mimics the underlying implementation of the i++ operator):
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int i = 5;
int j = PostIncrement(ref i);
}
static int PostIncrement(ref int x)
{
int temp = x;
x = x + 1;
return temp;
}
There is no 'equivalent' for i++.
In i++ the value for i is incremented after the surrounding expression has been evaluated.
In ++i and i+1 the value for i is incremented before the surrounding expression is evaluated.
++i will increment the value of 'i', and then return the incremented value.
Example:
int i=1;
System.out.print(++i);
//2
System.out.print(i);
//2
i++ will increment the value of 'i', but return the original value that 'i' held before being incremented.
int i=1;
System.out.print(i++);
//1
System.out.print(i);
//2
I was wondering if anyone could tell me about the i++ operator in C#.
I know it adds one to the int value, but I wouldn't have a clue where to use it, and if its only for loop statements, or can be used in general projects.
If I could get some practical examples of where you might use the i++ operator, thank you.
This is post-increment,which means that the increment will be done after the execution of the statement
int i=0;
Console.Write(i++); // still 0
Console.Write(i); // prints 1, it is incremented
In general, given this declaration:
var myNum = 0;
anywhere you would normally do this:
myNum += 1;
You could just do this:
myNum++;
What you are referring to is the C# post increment operator, common use case are :
Incrementing the counter variable in a standard for loop
Incrementing the counter variable in a while loop
Accessing an array in sequential order (3)
Example (3) :
int[] table = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
int i = 0;
int j = table[i++]; //Access the table array element 0
int k = table[i++]; //Access the table array element 1
int l = table[i++]; //Access the table array element 2
So, whats the post increment operator really does ?
It return the value of the variable and then increment it's value by 1 unit .
The expression i++ is just like x == y > 0 ? x : z which both are syntactic sugar.
x = i++ saves you the space of writing x=i; i=i+1;
Is it good or bad? There is really no exact answer to this.
I personally avoid these expressions as they make my code look complex, sometimes hard to debug. Always think code readability instead of write-ability, always think how your code looks readable instead of how easy is it to write it