Talk:Comma operator

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is there any common-ish use case for the comma operator? It seems like it would allow typo'd code to compile more often than actually doing anything useful. Psychlohexane (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

It can be used as a Sequence point. For example, you could increment a second unrelated variable at every iteration of a loop by doing something like for (i = 0; i < 10; j++, i++) (head code), where a normal C statement would not be permitted. I'm not sure whether this is either particularly common or regarded as good practice. 82.113.148.68 (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

It can be used to concisely show a relationship between two things like: if (badThing) return (errno = EINVAL, -1); -- here the side-effect of assigning to the global errno and the return code (-1) indicating an error occurred (and the caller should check errno). 75.162.33.157 (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the good question and responses! The main use case, as noted, is in the initializer and increment of for loops, though there are a few other uses. I’ve written them up in Comma operator#Uses, in edits ending in this edit. Hope these help, and please edit!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I came across another usage yesterday. You can use the operator to check, if a specific function can be called with the current compiler or not, if yes call it, otherwise call a fallback. Usefull for crossplatform development. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1386183/how-to-call-a-templated-function-if-it-exists-and-something-else-otherwise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwe Gebhardt (talk • contribs) 12:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

This article needs to mention that Stroustrup's comment about the usefulness of operator-comma was probably meant to indicate that it's not very useful to redefine or overload this operator, as opposed to merely using it. The problem is that redefining the operator results in destroying the operator precedence and the evaluation order!

For example, if I were to write something like: a = b.foo(), c.bar(); then it is normally guaranteed that foo() will be called first, its result thrown away, then bar() called second, and its result assigned to "a".

NOT So if you've overloaded the comma operator! Now it is simply a function call, and the C++ compiler is entirely within its rights (according to the language definition) to evaluate its arguments in either order it prefers.

— Forbin1 (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, beside their use in for-loops, I have found the comma operator useful for both horizontal and vertical brevity in switch statements, for example in a simple character-by-character state machine:

        while (state) switch ((c = *src++), state) {
                case 1:
                        if (c == 'x') ...
                        ...
                case 9:
                        if (c == 'y') ...
                        ...
                        state = 0; /* exit sm */
        }

Instead of:

        while (state) {
                c = *src++;
                switch (state) {
                        case 1:
                                if (c == 'x') ...
                                ...
                        case 9:
                                if (c == 'y') ...
                                ...
                                state = 0; /* exit sm */
            }
        }

without any significant loss of clarity. 173.23.44.8 (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

In the examples there is a problem in the fifth line: The result of "i = a += 2" is not defined by the C standard. The C compiler can decide to compile the statements composing the whole in the following way:

 t1 = a+2
 a = t1
 i = a

where "t1" is some temporary storage, but could also shuffle the second and third lines like this

 t1 = a+2
 i = a
 a = t1 

since there is only a sequence point after the "2". The original author of the examples seems to have intended the second way, gcc on my computer chooses the first. As this is undefined by the C standard I would remove that example. 134.169.77.186 (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC) (ezander)Reply

This is completely wrong and has nothing to do with sequence points, your argument could be applied to + as well, claiming "i = a + 2" is undefined because the compiler could chose to evaluate it as "i = a; 2", but this is obviously not the case. Assignment operators (including +=) are expressions with a well defined meaning and result, regardless of evaluation order. The C standard thus defines "i = a += 2" as "a += 2; i = a" (apart from the extra evaluation). There is nothing ambiguous or undefined about it. 194.126.175.154 (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

WRT "In this example, the differing behavior between the second and third lines..." The second and third lines are comments. ... In general, it's best to describe example code without using comments. Comments are for programmers. WP is for a wider audience. Also, with description in the prose, I think this sort of issue would be less likely. Stevebroshar (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I made it into a table with a short description of the behavior of each example. While I was at it I removed the redundant examples, which left three examples. In all honesty, I wouldn't mind removing this section entirely. I kept it in because I think it can be written into a good paragraph, perhaps focusing on the subtleties of the operator. — xo Ergur (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

WRT "The most common use is to allow multiple assignment statements without using a block statement"

Seems debatable that that's the _most_ common.

Also, this is not a great example of the operator since a core aspect is evaluating to the second operand, but the evaluated value of the first part of a loop spec is not used. The second part is used. A better example, would use the comma in the second part. Stevebroshar (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

WRT "This is the only idiomatic use in elementary C programming"

What does elementary C programming imply? Means little to me. If it means intro programming classes then I have to ask: according to who? Stevebroshar (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

WRT "the comma might be used instead of a semicolon, particularly when the statements in question function similarly to a loop increment (e.g. at the end of a while loop): ++p, ++q; ++p; ++q;"

What is the significance of: the statements in question function similarly to a loop increment. It begs the question: so what? It seems one can use comma instead of semi in alot of situations. What makes this one special? Stevebroshar (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've addressed the three points you made in the For loop subsection, mostly by removing the unneeded stuff. — xo Ergur (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

WRT "is a binary operator that evaluates its first operand and discards the result, and then evaluates the second operand and returns this value (and type)"

I don't think "returns this value" is accurate. Return implies a function, but there is no function. And type never gets returned. How about: Two expressions separated by the comma operator evaluate to the value of the second expression. Stevebroshar (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

*  Results: a=1, b=2, c=3, i=1
*/

int a=1, b=2, c=3; { int i = a, b; }

That's only if you decide to consider the result within the braces; outside the braces (i.e. the end) it is undefined, right?