> No, we couldn't!  The only reason anyone wants a "++" operator is because
> they like it from C/C++/Java/etc.  However, if it didn't work like it does
> in other languages, it would be terrible!  We'd never hear the end of it!

Good point.  To make '++' behave as it does in other languages, we would
have to significatly depart from the Ruby model (which is what makes Ruby
great to begin with)

> "++" is a relic from a language working too close to the processor
> instructions.

True.  The whole reason why '++' was invented in C was that it would
reduce the number of CPU instructions:

In C, 'a = a + 1' does this:

   1 -> Store "1" in a memmory location.
   + -> Add 1 to 'a' and store the result in another location.
   = -> take the contents from this location and put them at the
        location of 'a'.

But 'a += 1' does this:
   1  -> Store "1" in a memmory location.
   += -> Add it to 'a' and put it directly in the location of 'a',
         without the intermediate step.

Whereas 'a++' does this:

   ++ -> Increement 'a' by 1 and put the result directly in the
         location of 'a'.  Without the intermediate location.


Surely, this reason doesn't apply to Ruby. :-)

Daniel.