Joe4evr

Well, that pattern is the primary motivator for this entire proposal to begin with, so I'd be *shocked* if that didn't work.

I feel like you're trying too hard to use `ref struct` everywhere. Always keep in mind: 

@DaZombieKiller Why go through those hoops when you can just do `public ref Vector3 Position => ref position;`?

Well, it's 100% in the `X.0 Candidate` milestone. [And you can click it](https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/milestone/10) if you don't know what that means.

@leo60228 Is there any reason you'd need this over [Default Interface Methods](https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/master/proposals/default-interface-methods.md) #52 to create mixins? Interfaces will probably be supported just the same, but this proposal is more for...

> In that case, I think the next best solution is a `Unit` type (and `unit` keyword alias), but that has similar semantics to `void`, especially with regards to `return`:...

Sounds like a bad case of Round Peg, Square Hole. If you want named values, *especially* for the purpose of serialization, it's much more appropriate to use a `Dictionary`.

@KillyMXI > Any chance we will get this in foreseeable future? Not without a proposal Champion.

Does the CLR even support such a scenario, or does such a hypothetical `private internal` maybe not need CLR support?

@VincentH-Net That's more of a tooling question, and not *entirely* relevant when the feature isn't even worked on yet. While IntelliSense behavior can be taken into account with features, the...