On Monday, 24 September 2012 at 10:05:18 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
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);
What's the point than?
here's equivalent code without this "feature":
int a = 3;
(int) b = (a); // explicitly make 1-tuple
(a) = b; // unpacking syntax
void foo((int) a) {
int b1 = a[0];
(int b2) = a; // one possible syntax
}
int c = 3;
foo ((c));
