Walter Bright wrote:
Jérôme M. Berger wrote:I've always felt they were useless and confusing. What's the advantage of "y = (foo(), x + 3);" over "foo(); y = x+3;"?When you only see the x+3 because you're recursively walking the tree generating code.It's handy for things like rewriting ++e so it can be used more than once but is only evaluated once:(tmp = ++e, tmp)Uh? How is that different from "++e"You can then use tmp more than once with only one increment of e.
I guess I'll need a complete concrete example before I understand. I mean:
tmp = ++e; veryComplexExpressionThatUsesTmpSeveralTimesWithoutTouchingE; Or even: ++e; veryComplexExpressionThatUsesESeveralTimesWithoutIncrementingIt;Are both clearer, less error-prone and should produce equivalent code to the coma expression.
Jerome
--
mailto:[email protected]
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
