comma operator: keep away?

[Norman Diamond]

In article <19926 at iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> bobmon at iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) writes:

>>>>Is there a circumstance in which the comma operator is required, where
>>>>the compound statement cannot be broken into multiple statements?
>>>
>>I said "required", not "useful".

In article <8284 at chinet.chi.il.us> les at chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes:

>How about the more common:
>
>for (x=0, y=0; x <100 ; x++, y++) {
>    stuff ...
>}
> 
>Of course this could also be done other ways - the only thing "required"
>in a programming language is an assignment and a test-and-branch operator.
>The rest is merely "useful".

Why two operators?  The sole required operator is "subtract, assign, and
branch if negative."

Norman Diamond, Sony Computer Science Lab (diamond%csl.sony.jp at relay.cs.net)
  The above opinions are my own.   |  Why are programmers criticized for
  If they're also your opinions,   |  re-inventing the wheel, when car
  you're infringing my copyright.  |  manufacturers are praised for it?