Hi,
I created a new post because this is on a different
book, the complete version. I'm new here and not familiar with the regulation. If this is not allowed, I will delete it.
This problem has been discussed in
another post, and according to Campbell Ritchie's reply and tests, the 1z0-815 version, which reads "
First, lion is incremented", is correct.
Campbell Ritchie wrote:Yes, as we concluded earlier, the original explanation in the book appears to be correct.
That is to say, in code
++lion should be evaluated before lion-- because of order of evaluation.
However, it looks like the author misunderstood Campbell Ritchie and put it into errata again.
Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:And back to errata.
And now, it is still in the errata of 1z0-815, and to the contrary, the complete study guide reads "
First, lion is decremented."
I can tell, only one of the two versions is correct, right? In my own opinion, the original one is correct.