DIP19: Remove comma operator from D and provision better syntactic support for tuples

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 01:01:29 -0400, Nick Sabalausky  
<SeeWebsiteToContactMe at semitwist.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 18:48:22 -0400
> Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>>
>> Once a one-element tuple becomes equivalent to the actual item,
>> there's an explosion of trouble and special cases in the language and
>> in code that uses it. For example, divide and conquer code that
>> manipulates tuples and takes t[0 .. $/2] and t[$/2+1 .. $] would
>> suddenly get to cases in which the slices are no longer tuples, and
>> so on. And that's only the beginning.
>>
>
> I think one of us is missing something, and I'm not entirely sure
> who.
>
> As I explained (perhaps poorly), the zero- and one-element tuples *would
> still be* tuples. They would just be implicitly convertible to
> non-tuple form *if* needed, and vice versa. Do you see a reason why
> that would *necessarily* not be the case?

(int[]) x;

int a = x.length;

is a == 0 or 1?

I agree with Andrei, we need something different.

I don't profess to be even close to an expert on tuples, but I feel they  
should be built-in to the language, since they are actually language  
constructs that we are declaring types for.

Without any research or investigation, what about using a different set of  
delimiters for tuples?  Like {1,2,3}

Right now, I think that is reserved for static struct initializers.  But  
can't those be considered a tuple also?  Someone will probably destroy  
this 10 milliseconds after I send it :)

-Steve