int a, int b = 3, 3;
Considering how the syntax is defined, this will not do what
you expect, and it is not fixable easily without breaking other
constructs.
I thought we'd already covered that part, that was what I agreed
would break far too much code. That is not the heart of the
suggestion though and is why I moved on to the same assignment
syntax others were talking about using parens.
(int a, int b) = 3, 3;
or
(int a, int b) = (3, 3);
The parts, which perhaps your answer covers the issues with and I
did not understand, that seem elegant that I was asking about
were these:
int, string a = 1, "hello";
int, string foo(double, double a) {
return cast(int) (d[0] * d[1]), "hello";
}
Tuple assignment to a tuple allowing the omission of the first
level of brackets and multiple return type functions doing the
same, at present these would be unambiguous errors as far as I'm
aware. Especially with functions it seems a lot clearer to me and
as we don't allow functions to do:
void fun(int a, b, c) {
//Stuff
}
To make a, b and c ints then we have the freedom to do multiple
types separated by commas:
void fun(int, string a) {
}
A syntax like this:
(int, string) fun((double, double) a) {
return (cast(int) (d[0] * d[1]), "hello");
}
Is a lot messier and gets overloaded with parens.
