Stewart Gordon wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
<snip>
the only use case that will break is if the two increments are
dependent on the order (unless tuples are also evaluated from left to
right):
e.g.
a + 5, b + a //
<snip>
If you're overloading the + operator to have an externally visible side
effect, you're probably obfuscating your code whether you use the comma
operator or not.
Moreover, how can you prove that nothing that uses the operator's return
value can constitute a use case?
Stewart.
I don't follow you. What I said was that if you have the above in a for
loop with a comma expression, you'd expect to *first* add 5 to a and
*then* add the new a to b (comma operator defines left to right order of
evaluation).
tuples in general do not have to require a specific order since you keep
all the results anyway, so the above could break. by defining tuples to
be evaluated with the same order, the problem would be solved.
