KennyTM~ wrote: > On Nov 17, 09 23:44, Ellery Newcomer wrote: >> Leandro Lucarella wrote: >>> Ellery Newcomer, el 16 de noviembre a las 19:02 me escribiste: >>>> Justin Johansson wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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? >>>> The real problem is you'd end up with a tuple syntax identical to a >>>> valid c syntax. If D silently accepts it, but does something different, >>>> it's a no go. >>> >>> Code ported from C should not compile if the comma expression is >>> converted >>> to a tuple literal because if a and b are int, typeof(a,b) is int now >>> and >>> will be Tuple!(int, int) in the future, and I don't think >>> a Tuple!(anything) could be implicitly casted to anything, except, >>> maybe, >>> another tuple, but you don't have tuples in C, so there is no risk on >>> that. >>> >> >> void fun1(int a); >> void fun1(Tuple!(int,int) a); >> >> fun1( (a=fizbang(), a+b) ); > > These are not code ported from *C*.
all but the second fun1 are, and it could easily exist in D