Comma operator = broken design

[Timon Gehr]

On 12/07/2011 07:02 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Adam Ruppe"<destructionator at gmail.com>  wrote in message
> news:jbo8rr$rhh$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> Alex Rønne Petersen Wrote:
>>> I really do not see the value in allowing such syntax in the first
>>> place. I've been told that one argument was that generated code might
>>> use it, but I have no idea why it would be needed.
>>
>>
>> Aside from the compiler's implementation, one possible use
>> is something I ended up doing in Javascript recently.
>>
>> I have a thing that takes an attribute and pastes it into a code
>> string to check it.
>>
>> given validate="this.value.length>  3"
>>
>> it writes:
>>
>> if(!(this.value.length>  3))
>>    return false; // failed validation
>>
>> since the given string is inside an if statement, you can't put
>> a semicolon in there.
>>
>>
>> So, if you have a check more complex than returning a boolean
>> and want to stuff it all in that string (so functions are out), the
>> comma lets you do it:
>>
>> validate="do something, true"
>>
>>
>>
>> This is pretty ugly style that I think I've only ever done in D inside
>> a for loop... but the point is sometimes something comes up, and
>> it's nice to have another option available, even if it is ugly.
>
> Don't know about JS, but D can solve the same problem with anon delegates,
> which is less obscure anyway.
>
>

I think Don said that DMD cannot currently inline any delegates. Imho 
the spec should even *require* inlining in the special case that such a 
delegate is immediately executed. (even for debug builds).