Tuple literal syntax

[Ellery Newcomer]

I might be missing something, but how does this proposal get around the 
ambiguity in

(a,b,c)[0]

?

Currently, it's valid C syntax and valid D syntax. In your proposal it 
would be valid tuple syntax too.

On 10/07/2010 01:04 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
> There have been a couple of looong threads about tuples:
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Reddit_why_aren_t_people_using_D_93528.html
>
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Should_the_comma_operator_be_removed_in_D2_101321.html
>
>
> A lot of it foundered on what the syntax for tuple literals should be.
> The top of the list is simply enclosing them in ( ). The problem with
> this is
>
> (expression)
>
> Is that a parenthesized expression, or a tuple? This really matters,
> since (e)[0] means very different things for the two. Finally, I got to
> thinking, why not just make it a special case:
>
>
> ( ) == tuple
> (a) == parenthesized expression
> (a,b) == tuple
> (a,b,c) == tuple
> (a,b,c,d) == tuple
>
> etc.
>
> No ambiguities! Only one special case. I submit this special case is
> rare, because who wants to define a function that returns a tuple of 1?
> Such will come about from generative programming, but:
>
> (a,b,c)[0]
>
> may be how the generative programming works, and that suggests:
>
> (a,0)[0]
>
> as how a user could generate a tuple of 1. Awkward, sure, but like I
> said, I think this would be rare.