Joe Gottman wrote: > About a month ago, a thread here suggested that we change the meaning > of the comma operator. Currently, in scalar context the expression > foo(), bar() > means "evaluate foo(), discard the result, then return the value of > bar()". > It was suggested that this be changed to return the 2-element array > (foo(), bar()). Has Larry ruled on this yet?
Not that I'm aware of. For the most part, the previous discussion was focusing on what to replace the comma with in the case of "discard all but the last result", and my impression was that any ruling on the change would likely be contingent on the presence or absence of a suitable replacement. That said, > By the way, even if we do make this change, I think that in void > context the expression > foo(), bar() > should still simply evaluate its parameters in order for their side- > effects. This would allow comma expressions to remain as-is in loop > statements (formerly for statements), which is where most of them are > found anyway. I do like this suggestion. In the majority of cases where I've used the comma operator, I've either enclosed the whole thing in parentheses to turn it into a list, or I've treated it as a sequence of operators where even the last result got discarded. I've rarely been interested in just the last result, and I wouldn't mind that functionality being provided by means of a C<last> function which evaluates the list parameters for their side effects and returns the value of the last list parameter. ===== Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
