On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 08:09:31PM +0200, Era Scarecrow wrote: > On Monday, 30 April 2012 at 17:13:36 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: > >It would be unwise to make major changes to the language at this > >point. Personally I'd like to see the comma operator removed, but > >people keep saying it will break existing code, so that's probably > >not going to happen in D2. D3 perhaps will be able to clean up a lot > >of this mess. > > Then perhaps the comma operator can be pushed to the 'depreciated' > list for a while; If it breaks anything big and important, you can > still compile it. After a while we can see if it should be kept or > removed. I think that's the best approach all things considered. > > Personally, I have yet to really use it outside of a for/foreach > statement. On the other hand if it breaks something, generally it > will become quite clear where in few the few places and require you > to fix and update it before moving on.
Actually it's only inside for. A comma in foreach is not a comma operator but a separator (foreach(a,b;c) is not the same as foreach(b;c)). See, that's another case where it only causes confusion. And I've said many times that inside a for, it really should just be special-cased in for syntax. It should not be an operator in general. T -- Right now I'm having amnesia and deja vu at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
