Changing the behavior of the comma operator

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 3/25/14, 10:45 AM, Asman01 wrote:
> On Tuesday, 25 March 2014 at 17:33:20 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> After the recent discussions regarding the comma operator, and after
>> inspecting the patterns of code affected by it, Walter and I would
>> back up the following change to the D language:
>>
>> 1. The comma operator stays with its current syntax.
>>
>> 2. The semantics is the same unless warnings are enabled with "-w"
>>
>> 3. In "-w" mode, semantics are changed in that the type of the comma
>> operator is NOT the type of its last expression, but instead it's void.
>>
>> 4. Later on the warning will be promoted to a deprecation followed by
>> removal from the language.
>>
>> 5. Reintroducing the result type as a tuple remains a future possibility.
>>
>> We believe the change would be beneficial for the following reasons:
>>
>> 1. Based on druntime and phobos, the breakage is likely to be infrequent.
>>
>> 2. The change may catch (and has caught) important bugs caused by
>> misplacing closing parentheses.
>>
>> 3. Most code using the result of the comma expression looks foreign
>> even to seasoned programmers and might gain in clarity from a refactor.
>>
>>
>> Please reply to discuss this possibility.
>>
>>
>> Andrei
>
> At first I throught didn't remove comma operator from language because
> it will make(possibly) hard to C/C++ guys porting code to D but instead
> of it will be allowed but return void type? why is this better than remove?

You are responding to the post replying all of these questions.

Adnrei