Tuple DIP

[Q. Schroll]

On Friday, 12 January 2018 at 22:44:48 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> [...]
> This DIP aims to make code like the following valid D:
>
> ---
> auto (a, b) = (1, 2);
> (int a, int b) = (1, 2);
> ---
> [...]

How is (1, 2) different from [1, 2] (static array)? It makes no 
sense to me to have both and probably a bunch of conversion 
rules/functions.

Why don't you consider extending (type-homogeneous) static arrays 
to (finite type enumerated) tuples? It solves
  - 1-tuples
  - comma operator vs. tuple literal
instantly.
You'd have T[n] as an alias for the tuple type consisting of n 
objects of type T.

I've written something about that here:
https://forum.dlang.org/post/wwgwwepihklttnqghcaq@forum.dlang.org
(sorry for my bad English in that post)

The main reason I'd vote against the DIP: Parenthesis should only 
be used for operator precedence and function calls.