Subject: DocOz belly-blasting plan

From: Digestive Breakthrough Revealed <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 11:07:42 -0700

Want to look OMG-Good in 10 days?

Ipp-archive, Your request has been granted. 
-----------------------------------------------

Stop Everything. This is Huge... Self-Loathing is Over. 

See how Oprah lost 17 lbs in a few weeks, w/out working out. 

DocOz Video Clip -> http://www.homestern.com/DozOz/Fat-Melting/Shocker.video

- ends bloating - regulates metabolism - boost weight-loss 800% - 

- Oz Blog - 

To end further notifications - write "stop" to  Updated Notifications Services
115 Hadley Way_Counce_ Tenessee_ 38326 or visit http://www.homestern.com/45y/w3fti.5jkyi4

It's not necessarily bad to not know if your session is started. If you're lazy-loading (only starting the session when it's first needed) then the test in your answer would be perfectly fine. Also in some environments apache has session autostarting set up   LeonardAn example for testing if session_id() returns empty string in an include file: The comment about refactoring session management if you don't know if it's tarted or not is not really relevant. For example if coding advanced features into a WordPress theme you won't ever know if a plugin has already started using sessions without checking. The coding world isn't always that black and white :P Mmm, So you can call session_start as many times as you want   1 because it's really cool to see such a simple piece had somebody do this in our code (C++). One compiler it worked as designed, another compiler it just broke. Also I think if your relying on the pre- or post- part of increment, I think you should change your code.   am 
 i correct? In the line 1 the value of x is assigned or incrementing .. if first x value is assigned then it has to increment before the line 2 to execute... so my doubt is how zero is printing all the ways.. my tested x++ is post-increment; x= is assignment of result; the result of x++ is the original x (and there is a  for a clear exposition of a question that usually leads to fighting language lawyers. Incidentally, my upvote It's very strange that in C language the behavior is different. Maybe in C it first read the value and then, later, it increments, while in Java it increments then return the old value.  As far as I understand, in C this behaviour is undefined, so different implementation may have different 
One thing to remember about C is that it was largely an ad hoc language. It wasn't standardized until the 1980s,  even the AT&T compiler couldn't be considered a "reference" implementation. It's likely that there were multiple independent implementations of post-increment, and so the standard had to be silent on the matter. By comparison, the Java language was designed as a consistent whole. I think Dan Tao's update answers this Now that I have a popular question I'm regretful, the (repeated) answers don't stop coming, even after the correct answer was chosen. My "Recent Activity" screen is full of the same answers, and coming more@Rob  you may want to read the full question before make a comment.. ;) This was a code made by a One thing that is kinda funny in Eclipse is that if you test your code which produces the infinite loop, you get no warnings in Eclipse. However, change to ++x;, which actually works and produces the desired result, and Eclipse gives a warning that the assignme
 nt to variable x has no effect. In my opinion, it should have given that error message to the x++ example. I have been to this question a few times and simply wanted to say Hello! Your chosen answer was illusory for me as well, I never thought to view x++; as a shorthand for a method that does the same, and I had the incorrect idea that x++ meant x gets incremented after the current line/expression has finished, but that's impossible because you'd have a return oldVal; and then something after it, which is unreachable code because of the return. The universe comes full circle again!