On Tuesday, 9 February 2016 at 08:35:21 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
When faced with a judgment call like this, we really ought to err on the side of maintaining backwards compatibility - especially since this does not preclude adding a separate by-value version of `Tuple.slice`, as well. It was going to need a new name anyway.
I suggest lobbying for proper builtin tuple support. IMO one shouldn't be able to take the reference of a tuple, to ensure that it can be kept in registers. Modern desktop CPUs have maybe 512 bytes of register space. In most cases a tuple will be within 8 bytes * 16 or something like that.
