On Tuesday, 20 August 2013 at 00:28:47 UTC, Meta wrote:
Yes, changing semantics is a bad thing, which is why I was originally thinking of the tuple syntax as sugar for std.typecons.Tuple. The proposed syntax takes a hit if it is just sugar for the compiler tuples. They will break in some cases when being passed to functions, and will still not be able to be returned from functions.
It is not about sugar. It is about having entity in standard library to express concept that is built in into language and confusion it creates. Fixing semantics to allow _even more auto-expansion_ is a nice possible side effect.
What you ask it is done by Tuple and there is nothing special about it - it is a struct, normal value type. One may be disappointed with relatively verbose syntax but it is not a real issue. But conflating it with built-in possible is simply impossible - if you even start thinking about syntax that does it, you probably need to re-read all documentation linked in this topic on tuple topic.
Of course, we could have changed language in that regard - but this is a huge change, so complex that thinking about literal syntax is last thing we should do. And it does not seem to have much supporters to start with.
