Replacing the comma operator

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

BCS wrote:
> 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.

That's the plan.

Andrei