On 02/07/2013 02:56 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 21:53:25 -0500, deadalnix <deadal...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2013 at 21:30:10 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
&(fun, fun)
Agh, comma strikes again. It should be handled analogous to the
ternary expression. i.e. the expression above evaluates fun and then
returns the function pointer. The DIP now states this. (the second
fun is in address-taken position.) This is in agreement to how lvalue
positions propagate into comma expressions.
Adding more special cases are not gonna create a good DIP.
I don't they are so much a special case, as they are a clarification.
The two "exceptions" are simply explaining that because ternary operator
and comma operators evaluate to an lvalue, it is equivalent to putting
the & on the resulting lvalue.
-Steve
Exactly. Those operators already have this behaviour in other contexts.
OT: One of my favourite comma/ternary-isms is the following:
import std.typecons : tuple;
void foo(int x){}
void main(){
int x;
foo((x++,tuple.expand),x,(x++,tuple.expand));
foo(true?tuple.expand:tuple.expand,x,);
}
I think it is valid code. :-)
DMD cannot handle it though.
