DIP19: Remove comma operator from D and provision better syntactic support for tuples

[foobar]

On Monday, 24 September 2012 at 10:05:18 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:56:40 +0200
> Jacob Carlborg <doob at me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-09-24 07:01, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> 
>> > I think one of us is missing something, and I'm not entirely 
>> > sure
>> > who.
>> >
>> > As I explained (perhaps poorly), the zero- and one-element 
>> > tuples
>> > *would still be* tuples. They would just be implicitly 
>> > convertible
>> > to non-tuple form *if* needed, and vice versa. Do you see a 
>> > reason
>> > why that would *necessarily* not be the case?
>> 
>> Would that mean you could start doing things like:
>> 
>> int a = 3;
>> int b = a[0];
>> 
>> That feels very weird.
>> 
>
> No, because there's nothing typed (int) involved there. But you 
> could do
> this:
>
>     int a = 3;
>     (int) b = a;
>     a = b;
>
> Or this:
>
>     void foo((int) a)
>     {
>         int b1 = a[0];
>         int b2 = a;
>     }
>     int c = 3;
>     foo(c);

What's the point than?
here's equivalent code without this "feature":

int a = 3;
(int) b = (a); // explicitly make 1-tuple
(a) = b; // unpacking syntax

void foo((int) a) {
   int b1 = a[0];
   (int b2) = a; // one possible syntax
}
int c = 3;
foo ((c));