Tuple DIP

[Timon Gehr]

On 16.02.2018 21:48, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 01:16:13PM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Friday, February 16, 2018 21:01:02 Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>> On 01/14/2018 12:21 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>>>> what would be the equivalent of this ?
>>>>> ` writeln(tuple!("x", "y", "z")(2, 3, 4).y); `
>>>>
>>>> It would continue to work the same way.
>>>>
>>>> I did consider adding a proposal for built-in named tuple syntax:
>>>>
>>>> writeln((x: 2, y: 3, z: 4).y);
>>>>
>>>> (int a, double b) t = (a: 1, b: 2.0);
>>>> int x = t.a;
>>>> double y = t.b;
>>>
>>> Tuples are anonymous bundles, when you want a product type with
>>> field names use a struct.
>>
>> That's not necessarily unreasonable, but std.typecons.Tuple is frequently
>> used as a convenient way to return a group of values, and the trend has been
>> towards using named values, because those are easier to deal with as return
>> values, because they're somewhat self-documenting at that point, and they're
>> less error-prone. So, if we're talking about adding more complete tuples to
>> the language, if they don't have support for names, you then have the
>> problem of whether it's better to use the built-in tuples or something like
>> std.typecons.Tuple with named values, and there's a pretty strong argument
>> at that point that it's better to use the named tuples and lose whatever
>> benefits the built-in tuples might provide, because the named tuples result
>> in more maintainable code.
> [...]
> 
> Tuples with named fields are essentially anonymous structs.  If we had
> those, 60% of what this DIP addresses would already have been solved.
> Cf.:
> 
> 	https://forum.dlang.org/post/kfbnuc$1cro$1@digitalmars.com
> 
> 
> T
> 

You got that number a bit too high.
The DIP is mostly about tuple unpacking.