You've shown it's clearly incompatible with the current language
and would break lots of code. What would it break if assignment
required explicit tuple brackets?
(int a, b) = foo(); // A tuple assignment, 'a' and 'b' will be
filled in order by the multiple return values of foo()
int foo() {
return 1;
}
(int a, b) = foo(); // Also valid and only sets 'a'
int, int foo() {
return 1, 2;
}
int a = foo(); // Also valid and 'a' takes the first tuple value
(int a, auto b) = foo(); // Evaluated left to right so 'a' will
take the first argument of foo and b will auto to a type or tuple
of what remains. It will error if there is nothing remaining for
b. This would still allow the clean expression of stand-alone
tuples and function arguments and return values.
int, string a = 1, "hello";
int, string foo(double, double a) {
return cast(int) (d[0] * d[1]), "hello";
}
Doesn't the needs of bracketing to determine order operation,
(stuff) more or less imply that implicit conversion between one
member tuples and the type of that tuple member is a requirement?
Or would the (stuff, ) syntax be better?
