Should the comma operator be removed in D2?

testing - ignore this post test at test.com
Tue Nov 17 06:33:42 PST 2009


Testing - ignore this post Leandro Lucarella Wrote:

> Lutger, el 16 de noviembre a las 23:27 me escribiste:
> > dsimcha wrote:
> > 
> > > == Quote from Lutger (lutger.blijdestijn at gmail.com)'s article
> > ...
> > >> int a = 1;
> > >> int b = --a, ++a;
> > >> assert(b == 1);
> > >> assert(a == 1);
> > > 
> > > Axe.  Looks like the only things it's good for are making code undreadable
> > > and abusing for loop syntax to...
> > > 
> > > Make code unreadable.
> > > 
> > > When the heck would this be significantly more readable, safer, or more
> > > concise
> > > than doing the equivalent without it?  Also, from previous discussions I
> > > vaguely remember it's constraining other parts of the syntax.
> > 
> > Those discussions were about nice native tuple syntax. The only argument in 
> > favor of the comma operator I can remember is code-generation.
> 
> Which is a very dumb one.
> 
> -- 
> Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Y cuando llegamos a nuestro hogar ella saca de su bolsillo derecho un
> casete de Ricardo Montaner y nos dice: "Ponelo! Ponelo!"; nos
> desilusionamos un poco, pero a esa altura... Todo da igual.
> 	-- Sidharta Kiwi




More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list