Replacing the comma operator

[BCS]

Reply to Andrei,

> Stewart Gordon wrote:
> 
>> One of these reasons was to open the option of evaluating
>> subexpressions in parallel.  I'm not sure what the others were, but
>> another optimisation potential that comes to my mind is to minimise
>> the working memory while still allowing expressions to be written in
>> an intuitive order.
>> 
>> Who has decided that these reasons are no longer good, and why?
>> 
>
> Note that operations can still be evaluated in parallel
> as long as there's no dependencies between them.
> 
> Andrei
> 

You could go with "apparent order", that is the code can work anyway it wants 
as long as the end effect is the same as if the order was per the spec.