In C++, pre-increment operator gives lvalue because incremented object itself is returned, not a copy. But in C, it gives rvalue. Why?
Why pre-increment operator gives rvalue in C?
2.3k Views Asked by Happy Mittal AtThere are 3 best solutions below

Off the top of my head, I can't imagine any useful statements that could result from using a pre-incremented variable as an lvalue. In C++, due to the existence of operator overloading, I can. Do you have a specific example of something that you're prevented from doing in C, due to this restriction?

C99 says in the footnote (of section $6.3.2.1),
The name ‘‘lvalue’’ comes originally from the assignment expression E1 = E2, in which the left operand E1 is required to be a (modifiable) lvalue. It is perhaps better considered as representing an object ‘‘locator value’’. What is sometimes called ‘‘rvalue’’ is in this International Standard described as the ‘‘value of an expression’’.
Hope that explains why ++i
in C, returns rvalue.
As for C++, I would say it depends on the object being incremented. If the object's type is some user-defined type, then it may always return lvalue. That means, you can always write i++++++++
or ++++++i
if type of i
is Index
as defined here:
C doesn't have references. In C++
++i
returns a reference toi
(lvalue) whereas in C it returns a copy(incremented).C99 6.5.3.1/2
‘‘value of an expression’’ <=> rvalue
However for historical reasons I think "references not being part of C" could be a possible reason.