Records -- current status

[Brian Goetz]

>  Note: I've been curious what explicit destructuring is expected to 
> look like.

As have we all :)

The underlying model for how destructuring works was discussed at my 
JVMLS talk last year (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3_8YcYKScw) but 
it didn't explore the syntax of how you would declare a matcher either.  
We're currently struggling with finding a way to express this that (a) 
supports all the desired degrees of freedom, (b) is not bizarre, and (c) 
can be mechanically translated to something efficient.  I have some 
ideas but as this is a feature that's much farther down the road (first 
we need basic pattern matching, then we need destructuring matching on 
records, before hand-written matchers are a requirement), I'd rather not 
distract the conversation with a syntax-oriented discussion.  I am 
working on a more concrete list of requirements for what explicit 
matchers need to support, but I've been sitting on that because I want 
to get the basics on a more solid footing first.