This may have been brought up already, but it would be nice to have a compact syntax for making a data structure that is a mixture of positional and keyword arguments. As an analogy to the function syntax f(1, 2; x=2, y=3), I would propose the syntax: (1, 2; x=2, y=3) which could get lowered to: …

Compact syntax for combining `Tuple` and `NamedTuple`: `(1, 2; x=2, y=3) == ((1, 2), (x=2, y=3))`

StefanKarpinski March 18, 2022, 11:11pm 11

Yeah, that’s an unfortunate syntax conflict. I regret making (ex; ex) a chained expression syntax. Not useful enough to be worth it.

1 Like

FrankenTuple Fun

Topic		Replies	Views
Canonical way to obtain `NamedTuple` from kwargs General Usage	13	2352	October 10, 2018
Short type declarations (syntax sugar)? Internals & Design proposal , suggestions , syntax	26	2682	July 9, 2019
Splatting tuples into a named tuple implicitly converts them to pairs? General Usage question , tuple	2	1676	August 7, 2020
Please explain fine point of splatting syntax in macros General Usage question	3	703	October 14, 2018
Named Tuples Verbosity General Usage	1	406	April 4, 2019