Tuple literal syntax

[Justin Johansson]

On 8/10/2010 9:30 PM, bearophile wrote:
> Lars T. Kyllingstad:
>
>> Personally, I don't think we should start adding a dedicated tuple syntax
>> at this point.  There are so many things that are more important, and
>> besides, I think the library tuples are pretty cool.  We should instead
>> focus on making Tuple!(...) even better.
>
> Tuples are a basic part of a language, they need to come before web tools, loggers, numeric libraries and so on. You build Phobos and all those things with a language. So if the language is better, you will work better.
>
>  From what I've seen so far in this thread the Tuple/Record library solution will be kept, but some built-in syntax sugar (unpacking, and maybe for the literals) helps in making tuple usage more handy and clean.

People responding on this thread still allude the basic question about
exactly a tuple is supposed to be.  This discussion is hitherto
pointless.

I think Andrei is in agreement .. here's the transcript
from earlier on in this thread.

Cheers
Justin Johansson


(prior transcript follows)

On 10/7/10 7:23 CDT, Justin Johansson wrote:
 > On 7/10/2010 5:04 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
 >> There have been a couple of looong threads about tuples:
 >>
 >> 
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Reddit_why_aren_t_people_using_D_93528.html
 >>
 >>
 >> 
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Should_the_comma_operator_be_removed_in_D2_101321.html
 >>
 >>
 >> A lot of it foundered on what the syntax for tuple literals should be.
 >> The top of the list is simply enclosing them in ( ). The problem with
 >> this is
 >
 > Walter, please define exactly what a tuple is as being, both
 > in the context of your post and (presumably) in the D type system.
 >
 > Without a precise definition of exactly what a tuple is,
 > your post will at best elucidate responses that also lack a
 > precise understanding of a tuple is (supposed to be).
 >
 > There are already a number of responses to your post that focus
 > on syntax and without any semantic foundation.

Wise words! It was exactly what I protested against. It discusses syntax 
without attacking any of the actual issues.

Andrei