First, recall that I asked already that we table this digression; I
provided the peek because several folks asked me for some more context,
not to distract us with a shiny bikeshed.
Second, I get what you are saying -- I really do, because I've been
exactly there on my long and winding journey -- and even thought briefly
I had reached the end there. And I totally get the idea that it seems
like we're adding more concepts than we need to. But I'm looking at
this from the point of view of _what mental model do we want to
encourage_, not how can we make the fewest changes to the language. I
realize the "just use a fake tuple" (or anonymous record) appeals to a
sense of economy, but I do not believe it equilibrates in the right
place. We have invested a significant amount in integrating pattern
matching into the language; I don't want to nail something on the side.
I'm a little disappointed by the current discussions, when Brian announced that
a record will be immutable, I was flabbergasted how brilliant the idea was
because not only you can use a record and do directly pattern destructuring on
it but also you can use it as an anonymous carrier of values to transfer the
values from a plain old class to a representation you can do destructuring on
it.
And we're doing all those things. Just at the translation level, not
the source level.
It seems that that plan has been lost at some point.
No, it was not lost, it got extensive scrutiny, I spent a significant
amount of time considering it and working out the details before I
soured on the idea. Not all initially attractive ideas turn out to be
right.
But, back to my top point: this is not the issue that is in front of us
now.
