<div dir="ltr"><div>Yeah, for our application I want to write very explicit code that's fairly self-explanatory as part of a tutorial so I chose i := i + 1. Even if they end up using INC(i) down the road, INC(i) isn't necessarily self-explanatory for a novice user without assembly experience <i>(like me for example)</i>. </div><div><br></div><div>It's a small consideration though - I was mostly curious if they are compiled differently</div><div><br></div><div>best,</div><div>Jeff</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><pre style="white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0)">My understanding is that if an experienced Python programmer just wanted to increment an integer variable they wouldn't write i = i + 1, instead they would write:
i += 1
Similarly C++ programmers would write
INC(i) is the best match in Oberon for either of these statements.
I suspect they would be unhappy if you told them to rewrite this in Python / C++ as
i = i + 1
so they would see this as a disadvantage if they were told that they had to write it this way in Oberon.