got him

Perhaps *(p += 1) will be to your liking?

Much better... but can we make it *((void*)(p = p + 1))?
- How about some JavaScript p+=[]**[]?
- Why are you casting to void*? How is the compiler supposed to know the size of the data you are dereferencing?
  
  This would probably cause a compiler error....
  But assuming it doesn't the context is p_ch = the bits above... the code declaring p_ch isn't shown but I'm guessing that the value here is actuality a pointer to a pointer so nothing illegal would be happening.
  Lastly... C++ is really lacking in guarantees so you can assign a char to the first byte of an integer - C++ doesn't generally care what you do unless you go out of bounds.
  The reason I'm casting to void* is just pure comedy.
p = 1 x = ++p // x = 2 // p = 2

p = 1 x = p++ // x = 1 // p = 2
++p will increase the value and return the new value
p++ will increase the value and return the old value
I think p = p + 1 is the same as p++ and not as ++p. No?
- In C an assignment is an expression where the value is the new value of what was being assigned to.
  In a = b = 1, both a and b will be 1.
  
  a = *(p = p + 1)
  is the same as
  
  p += 1 a = *p
  , so ++p.
  
  What I meant was:
  In the screenshot it said x = *(++p) and iirc that is not the same as saying x = *(p++) or x = *(p += 1)
  As in my example using ++p will return the new value after increment and p++ or p+=1 will return the value before the increment happens, and then increment the variable.
  Or at least that is how I remember it working based on other languages.
  I'm not sure what the * does, but I'm assuming it might be a pointer reference? I've never really learned how to code in c or c++ specifically. Though in other languages ( like PHP which is based on C ) there is a distinct difference between ++p and (p++ or p+= 1)
  The last two behave the same. Though it has been years since I did a lot of coding. Which is why I asked.
  I'll install the latest PHP runtime tonight and give it a try xD
- (p += 1) resolves to the value of p after the incrementation, as does ( p = p + 1).
  
  Yes.
  p++ == p+= 1 == p = p + 1 are all the same if you use it in an assignment.
  ++p is different if you use it in an assignment. If it's in its own line it won't make much difference.
  That's the point I was trying to make.
  
  No.
  ++p returns incremented p.
  p += 1 returns incremented p.
  p = p + 1 returns incremented p.
  p++ returns p before it is incremented.
  
  Right. So i had them the other way around. :D
  Thanks for clarifying.

welcome to C

That *++ operator from C is indeed confusing.

Reminds me of the goes-to operator: --> that you can use as:

        while(i --> 0) {

That's not a real operator. You've put a space in "i--" and removed the space in "-- >". The statement is "while i-- is greater than zero". Inventing an unnecessary "goes to" operator just confuses beginners and adds something else to think about while debugging.
And yes I have seen beginners try to use <-- and --<. Just stop it.
- The sheer number of people that do not expect a joke on this community... (Really, if you are trying to learn how to program pay attention to the one without the Humor on the name, not here.)
  Well, I guess nobody expects.
- Where do you think we are?

It's very likely plain old C
- Not if you've done a lot of pointer math
I thought it was just incrementing the address and dereferencing it, but I don't write C or C++. What is being overloaded there?