RFC: 2 enhancement DIPs that need feedback

[Timon Gehr]

On 5/20/25 11:59, jmh530 wrote:
> On Tuesday, 20 May 2025 at 09:33:40 UTC, Dejan Lekic wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 13 May 2025 at 09:04:07 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
>>>
>>> ```d
>>> (auto a, auto b) = call(); // two VarDeclExp in the LHS
>>> ```
>>
>> Please no... If we can't have `auto (a, b) = call();` then we better 
>> not have it at all...
> 
> Why not allow both?
> 
> 

Both variants work with the design proposed in the DIP, but Basile's 
alternative proposal by default would allow at most one of these, which 
is what Dejan was objecting to.