Merge pull request #317 from max-208/67-java

GCI67 S.T.E.P Challenge2025: docs: 📝 "++i" statement is not so bad

Author: dedece35

CHANGELOG.md

@@ -16,6 +16,8 @@ and this project adheres to [Semantic Versioning](https://semver.org/spec/v2.0.0
 - [GCI91](https://github.com/green-code-initiative/creedengo-rules-specifications/pull/410) Adapt rule GCI91 to java context in case of stream
 - [GCI69](https://github.com/green-code-initiative/creedengo-rules-specifications/pull/396) Calls to hasMoreElements() and nextElement() methods from java.util.Enumeration interface aren't flagged anymore when called in a for loop
 - Correction of various typos in rules documentations
+- [#44](https://github.com/green-code-initiative/creedengo-java/issues/44) Improvement: "++i" statement is not so bad
+
 
 ### Deleted
 

src/main/rules/GCI67/java/GCI67.asciidoc

@@ -13,3 +13,28 @@ i++  // Noncompliant
 ----
 ++i
 ----
+
+## Exception
+In some cases, it may be intentional to allow the use of `i++`, even if it is probably not far from a code smell.
+Examples:
+
+[source,java]
+----
+void bar(int value) {
+    // ...
+}
+
+int foo() {
+    int i = 0;
+    bar(i++);
+    return i;
+}
+----
+or
+[source,java]
+----
+private int i = 0;
+int foo() {
+    return this.i++;
+}
+---