Ashley

This definitely needs to be configurable. I don't think I'd want this behavior personally.

@WrongBit Sorry, it's my fault I missed that. I was just politely expressing my opinion, you don't need to take it personally. I'd be happy with you contributing this.

> it's consistent with the concept of treating operations on syntatic tuples as distributed to each individual syntactic element But there is no tuple here, only deconstruction. A tuple isn't...

`(int x, bool y) = default;` I just don't see the use case for this. You don't want to create a tuple here (otherwise you would use one) and you...

> And there's no reason why the compiler cannot lower: (int x, bool y) = default; to: (int x, bool y) = (default, default); Yes there is. You use deconstruction...

`(int x, bool y) t = default;` here it's clear that you're initializing a single variable `t` with the default value of its type `(int x, bool y) = default;`...

I don't see either one of: ```c# int x = default; bool y = default; ``` or if you want ```c# (int x, bool y) = (default, default); ``` as...

@KnorxThieus Thanks for the Try/out example. That's really the best use case for default because when returning false it really says: "put in the default value, I don't care what...

@DavidArno > There is already precedence here. The compiler already supports I know. I've used that myself on occasion. But it's a little different because on the right you unambiguously...

@KnorxThieus What makes this case different is that there's no 'type_of_expected_expression' after a deconstruction. After all, you could have your own type that is deconstructable, it doesn't have to be...