Should the comma operator be removed in D2?

[Robert Jacques]

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 01:44:30 -0500, yigal chripun <yigal100 at gmail.com>  
wrote:

> Robert Jacques Wrote:
>> However, I imagine tuple(a++,b++) would have some overhead, which is
>> exactly what someone is trying to avoid by using custom for loops.
>>
>> Personally, I like using a..b => tuple(a,b), since it also solves the
>> multi-dimensional slicing and mixed indexing and slicing problems.
>
> what overhead? It's all in your imagination :)
> a..b is confusing and bad UI. a..b means for humans the range of a till  
> b and not the tuple of the two.
> if I see something like "hello"..42 I would assume the person who wrote  
> this was high on something.
>
> multi dimentinal slicing should accept an integer range type and NOT a  
> tuple.

The unnecessary creation and setting of a tuple struct is by definition  
overhead. Also, containers will have non-integer slices, e.g.  
dictionary["hello".."world"], and strided ranges would even mix types:  
"hello"..42.."world". My point isn't that '..' was a better syntax than  
'(,)'. It's that '..' needs to change to something very much like a tuple  
and therefore could be used to kill two birds with one stone.