On 11/5/2016 21:13, deadalnix wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 May 2016 at 10:50:47 UTC, Lionello Lunesu wrote:
On 10/5/2016 22:16, deadalnix wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 at 10:09:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 5/10/16 12:52 PM, Mathias Lang wrote:
So, following DConf2016, I raised a P.R. to deprecate usage of the
comma
expressions, except within `for` loops increment [5].
The agreed-upon ideea was to allow uses that don't use the result
(including for loops). No? -- Andrei
Let's just make it of void type, there was plan to recycle the syntax
maybe, but whatever we do in the future, this is the sensible first
step.
Acutally, we can do two-birds-one-stone: instead of making it void,
make it a value tuple!
No. You can't change semantic to something that'll still work under the
feet of the user. If this syntax is to be recycled to tuple, the value
needs to be void for a while as to shake out uses.
It is safe to go from void to something else, it isn't not to go from
something to something else.
I agree with you when the 1st something and 2nd something are somehow
compatible. void is also a something, but it'd work because it'd never
silently change the meaning of code.
I'm trying to think of a case where changing a single value into a tuple
with 2 (or more) values would silently change the behavior, but I can't
think of any. Seems to me it would always cause an error, iff the result
of the comma operator gets used.
