grauzone wrote:
Note that if comma-as-sequencer was removed, and repurposed as a tuple
literal (with "a,b" making a tuple), and if we specify that tuple
elements are evaluated in order, then I think this would work as a
replacement for the current comma operator:
(expr1,expr2,expr3)[$-1]
But the nice thing is you can get the effect of a comma operator that
evaluates to the value of any expression in the sequence, just using
different indices.
Not sure how odious people would find forcing an order of eval on
tuples, though.
In the context of a for-loop, you don't care what the value is, so it
would work as a tuple as-is. The tuple itself would be the value:
for(; i<10; ++i,++j) // just works
That's nice.
Though, probably this case needs some special treatment to continue
working:
int i=0,j=0
Does it need to be a special case? "int i=0,j=0" is one declaration
(with variables separated by a comma), not something glued together with
the comma operator.
Of course normal declarations like "int i, j;" also would continue to
work. Not all commas are part of a comma expression.
Great. Sounds like problem solved in that there is no problem.
So how do people feel about bill's suggestion to progress the issue further?
Be good to get some comments from higher-up (Walter, Andrei)?
Predict bearophile will chime in on this one too?
