Yet another MRV proposal!

[Extrawurst]

downs schrieb:
> Let's give this another try.
> The following proposal has the advantage that it's funded mostly on existing syntax.
>
> An anonymous struct, in the position where you'd normally expect a function/method return type, is usable as the return type instead.
>
> Example:
>
> struct { int a; float b; } test() { return(1, 2f); }
>
> writefln(test().a, test().b);
>
> The compiler would translate this into "current D" as follows:
>
> struct _D_anonymous_struct_1 { int a; float b; }
> _D_anonymous_struct_1 test() { return _D_anonymous_struct_1(1, 2f); }
>
> Because of the not-exactly-clear type name, it is necessary to store the returned value in an auto/const/static variable.
>
> This looks like it could be ambiguous, but it really isn't - the two conditions required here - an unnamed struct in the position where a return type would be expected - are quite unambiguous :)
>
> Whaddya think?
>
>  --downs
>   

What speaks against solving the MRV issue by allowing tuples(TypeTuple) 
as return types ? I would love to see that..