On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:56:40 +0200 Jacob Carlborg <d...@me.com> wrote:
> On 2012-09-24 07:01, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > > > I think one of us is missing something, and I'm not entirely sure > > who. > > > > As I explained (perhaps poorly), the zero- and one-element tuples > > *would still be* tuples. They would just be implicitly convertible > > to non-tuple form *if* needed, and vice versa. Do you see a reason > > why that would *necessarily* not be the case? > > Would that mean you could start doing things like: > > int a = 3; > int b = a[0]; > > That feels very weird. > No, because there's nothing typed (int) involved there. But you could do this: int a = 3; (int) b = a; a = b; Or this: void foo((int) a) { int b1 = a[0]; int b2 = a; } int c = 3; foo(c);