Should the comma operator be removed in D2?

[Ellery Newcomer]

KennyTM~ wrote:
> On Nov 17, 09 23:44, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
>> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>>> Ellery Newcomer, el 16 de noviembre a las 19:02 me escribiste:
>>>> Justin Johansson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Great. Sounds like problem solved in that there is no problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> So how do people feel about bill's suggestion to progress the issue
>>>>> further?
>>>>>
>>>>> Be good to get some comments from higher-up (Walter, Andrei)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Predict bearophile will chime in on this one too?
>>>> The real problem is you'd end up with a tuple syntax identical to a
>>>> valid c syntax. If D silently accepts it, but does something different,
>>>> it's a no go.
>>>
>>> Code ported from C should not compile if the comma expression is
>>> converted
>>> to a tuple literal because if a and b are int, typeof(a,b) is int now
>>> and
>>> will be Tuple!(int, int) in the future, and I don't think
>>> a Tuple!(anything) could be implicitly casted to anything, except,
>>> maybe,
>>> another tuple, but you don't have tuples in C, so there is no risk on
>>> that.
>>>
>>
>> void fun1(int a);
>> void fun1(Tuple!(int,int) a);
>>
>> fun1( (a=fizbang(), a+b) );
> 
> These are not code ported from *C*.

all but the second fun1 are, and it could easily exist in D