Should the comma operator be removed in D2?

[Ellery Newcomer]

Ellery Newcomer wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 1:51 PM, KennyTM~ <kennytm at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 18, 09 05:40, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
>>>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>>>> However, I think for the good of humanity we can accept that one
>>>>> little bizarre example of legal C syntax not doing the same thing in
>>>>> D.
>>>> int[] i;
>>>>
>>>> auto a = (i)[0];
>>>>
>>>> what does this do?
>>> (i) should not construct a tuple. Probably (i,).
>> That's Python's solution and it seems to work out ok.
>>
>> --bb
> 
> How do we express tuple types? Since we have tuple expression syntactic
> support, we should have tuple type syntactic support. Cuz I'm going to
> want stuff like
> 
> Tuple!(int,int) [] lst;
> 
> These won't work:
> 
> [int,int] [] lst;
> (int,int) [] lst; //want
> {int,int} [] lst;
> 
> these might:
> 
> @(int,int) [] lst; //bleach, regardless of what symbol '@' is
> (,int,int) [] lst; //bleach
> alias (int,int) T; T [] lst; //bleach bleach bleach
> int,int [] lst; //requires tuple expressions be enclosed in () hmmmm...

and you'd have to enclose the types in () in nonstatement locations
> 
> 
> actually, types vs expressions are already syntactically ambiguous, so
> (int,int) [] lst; doesn't lose much. It's not the kind of thing we
> should be encouraging, though.