Named tuple fields (no type system changes)

[jhpratt]

@scottmcm

I wonder if maybe we could do it just in patterns as a first step?

There didn't seem to be any technical objections to doing this in patterns when I raised a substantially identical proposal five years ago. Maybe someone should draft up an RFC (not volunteering)?

Name elision

I have a fair amount of code that looks generally like this (more parameters and some with more fields destructured). fn foo(Foo { a, b, c }: Foo) {} I am using destructuring to ensure that if I ever add another field to the Foo struct, it must be handled and not silently ignored by this method, avoiding a potential bug Presumably we can all agree that repeating Foo in this situation is quite verbose, especially given that the real name is quite a bit longer. Rust requires the type to be expl…