grauzone wrote:
Don wrote:
Not so, Andrei has said that he thinks auto-flattening was a bad idea.
And AFAIK, Walter doesn't disagree.
You should try harder, because if you don't change it soon, it will be
there forever due to compatibility requirements.
The TODO list is very long.
Andrei and I, and almost everyone else, have tried to persuade Walter
to remove the comma operator, but without success. But I doubt you'd
be able to use it for tuples, because x, y = foo(); already has
meaning in C and tuples would give it a different meaning. I'd LOVE to
be proved wrong.
Wasn't the comma operator to be supposed to be important for automatic
code generation?
It's used frequently in in the compiler internals. EG, given
int foo(X x = default_value) { return 0; }
then foo(); becomes: (X tmp = default_value, foo(tmp));
I don't think it sees much use outside of compilers. There are other
ways to get the same effect in user code.
Even if it is, you could just pick a different token to implement this
operator. It doesn't have to be a comma, does it?
It doesn't need any syntax at all, when it's inside the compiler.
But the problem is, that comma has that meaning in C.
(OTOH I wonder how much extant C++ code uses the comma operator. I bet
there's not much of it. (But more than code than uses octal!)).
BTW as an asm programmer, I'm completely baffled as to why the concept
of 'single return value from a function' became dominant in programming
languages. It's a very unnatural restriction from a machine point of view.
