uniform tuple syntax

[Vlad Levenfeld via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 24 March 2015 at 18:12:03 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> I think we should settle on a syntax and split DIP32 in a tuple 
> part and
> a pattern matching part.
> The proposal wasn't yet formally accepted, partly because we 
> wanted to
> wait, whether more needs come up. By now it's already 2 years 
> old and it
> still looks complete IMO.
>
> http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP32

Anything wrong with using {}? It looks good to me, does it lead 
to any parsing ambiguities?

I just want to get all the .tuple and .expand and tuple parameter 
function overload litter out of my code. My use cases are 
multiple returns and parameters-first UFCS. It'd be great if

   {arg1, arg2}.func1.func2;

matched the signature

   auto func1 (T,U)(T arg1, U arg2);

On Tuesday, 24 March 2015 at 18:38:51 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> Using "$" for something completely different is confusing, but 
> it looks ok. Maybe rename existing use of "$" for length to 
> "#"? It can be automated.

You'd also have to rename opDollar to opHash or, maybe less 
confusingly, opPound. Also, $ is already a common idiom (at least 
in Unix) for "the end". It would be better to just name the 
pattern matching symbol # instead.