• d-bugmail puremagic.com (17/17) Feb 13 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2659
• d-bugmail puremagic.com (7/10) Feb 16 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2659
• d-bugmail puremagic.com (9/9) Oct 23 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2659

d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2659

           Summary: Remove the comma operator
           Product: D
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com
        ReportedBy: clugdbug yahoo.com.au


The comma operator is an unintuitive operator with very few commendable uses.

If comma were added to the increment grammar of the for loop,
the comma operator could be removed from the language.

It's another piece of baggage from C.


-- 

d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2659







 The comma operator is an unintuitive operator with very few commendable uses.

About the only real use it gets in C is in preprocessor macro hacks.  And we
all know D's stance on preprocessing.

 If comma were added to the increment grammar of the for loop,
 the comma operator could be removed from the language.

Or put to better purpose making (a,b,c) a literal tuple syntax.


-- 

d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2659




Just encountered another newbie reason for removing comma.

    writeln( 6, mixin("7,8"), 9 );

doesn't print the expected 6 7 8 9. Instead it prints 6 8 9.

If comma was removed, this wouldn't compile.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------