uniform tuple syntax

[deadalnix via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 24 March 2015 at 23:07:29 UTC, Vlad Levenfeld wrote:
> 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?

This syntax is over over loaded.