On Thursday, 27 March 2014 at 02:08:50 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 17:32:00 -0400, Nick Sabalausky
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/26/2014 7:44 AM, "Marc Schütz" <[email protected]>" wrote:
This is valid in both C and C++:
i, j = 0, 1;
It is equivalent to the following:
i;
j = 0;
1;
Under the proposal, the "0, 1" would be void, so it wouldn't
compile in D. Therefore, the rule about moving C code to D
safely is not violated.
This part of the subthread is about the future plans to
possibly use comma operators to mean tuples. This C/C++ code
will still be valid then, and when someone ports to D, might
get a nasty silently compiling surprise.
But, I think the proposal to re-introduce ',' as a tuple
operator would not affect this code, it would remain a
3-element tuple, with i, j, 1 as elements (after setting j to 0
of course). '=' has precedence over ','.
The second statement would be a problem (i, j) = (0, 1), but
clearly, this would not be a valid use case. I can envision
there may be some valid use cases of that form, however.
-Steve
I think you get operator priority wrong and it will be (i), (j =
0), (1). I added extra () to show how operator priority works.
