Array literals' default type

[Yigal Chripun]

On 12/10/2009 15:43, Don wrote:
> language_fan wrote:
>> Sat, 10 Oct 2009 17:15:55 +0200, Yigal Chripun thusly wrote:
>>
>>> Now, wouldn't it be wonderful if D had provided real tuple support
>>> without all the Tuple!() nonsense?
>>
>> 'D has full built-in tuple support' has been the answer each time I've
>> asked. It seems not to be advisable to ask more about this specific
>> feature since the language creators easily get annoyed when asked
>> about this. They see more value in reserving the syntax for the C
>> style sequencing operator which is rarely used. Also they have
>> apparently scientifically proven that the auto-flattening semantics of
>> tuples somehow works better than real product types, and have no
>> intention to make it an explicit controllable operation, which is also
>> easily implementable.
>
> Not so, Andrei has said that he thinks auto-flattening was a bad idea.
> And AFAIK, Walter doesn't disagree.
>
> Andrei and I, and almost everyone else, have tried to persuade Walter to
> remove the comma operator, but without success. But I doubt you'd be
> able to use it for tuples, because x, y = foo(); already has meaning in
> C and tuples would give it a different meaning. I'd LOVE to be proved
> wrong.
>
> It is very difficult to change Walter's mind about many things, but
> despite what people say, it is not impossible.

what's wrong with enclosing tuples in parenthesis?
(x, y) = foo();

int foo();
int bar();

int a = foo(), bar(); // sequence
int b, c;
(b, c) = (foo(), bar()); // tuples
b, c = foo(), bar(); // sequence
(b, c) = foo(), bar(); // error assigning int to (int, int)
b, c = (foo(), bar()); // error assigning (int, int) to int