Anyone ever considered named tuples?

[Neal Gafter]

The standard name for this kind of thing is "structural types".  Today, when
this kind of need arises in Java people are forced to define a POD
("plain-old-data") class (nominal type) as the container.  Without
considering its merits, as an extension of the type system such things are
out of scope for project Coin.

On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Paulo Levi <i30817 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Out of the blue, a few days ago, i wondered if a tuple construct that had
> names,
> ie: (String directory, String file) for instance, would make any sense?
> I know that spaghetti code should be factored to map to simple functions
> with simple return arguments, but i saw sooooo much code that had simple
> container semantics.
> A tuple object written as a compiler code transformation like autoboxing
> would make
> a lot of sense if it allowed names to be defined at use site.
> I'm sure you know that this can be simulated by some creative use of
> generics and static import,
> but the names (one ... first) are pretty bad.
>
> Just throwing a idea, don't bite my head off.
>
>