On Nov 18, 09 02:58, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
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
The only guarantee I knew is code valid in C either gives the same
result in C, or fails to compile.
Removing the 2nd fun1 which is invalid in C anyway, having a tuple
syntax, fun1 simply fails to compile. I see no problem here.
