Fred Silberberg

Basically, look at the existing records proposal (https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/master/proposals/records.md#with-expression) and detail exactly how it would need to be modified in order to support `with`ing an anonymous type. How would it actually...

@leandromoh it's a good start, but it needs to be more concrete. A spec isn't a guess about how to implement something: it lays out exactly how it will be...

Thanks for the very detailed write up Yair. I'm going to champion this as I'm interested in deconstruction assignment moving forward, I'll read through the proposed spec at a later...

For option 2, it seems like an unnecessary bifurcation to me, unless regular types can also implement so-called `static` interfaces.

> > unless regular types can also implement so-called static interfaces > > Yes, they'd be able to. You'd just only be able to implement an interface on a static...

We don't close issues until they are implemented in the ECMA spec.

Closing a duplicate of https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/issues/1239. See https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/a3d67d141501101af9dbb9e8192ca8b4c717e316/meetings/2020/LDM-2020-07-13.md#generics-and-generic-type-parameters-in-aliases, where we explicitly mentioned adding support for tuple syntax, and https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/87adc18115ce4b4429610af1330ca4430219ddd6/meetings/2020/LDM-2020-09-28.md#proposal-support-generics-and-generic-type-parameters-in-aliases, where the timing was discussed.

> The linked proposal is very broad and contains extra things i don't think are necessary to solve the core problem. Personally, my read of the opinion the last time...

And of note, the most recent time this was brought up in LDM, that negative community sentiment was mentioned.

This was discussed and accepted in LDM: https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/main/meetings/2022/LDM-2022-03-28.md#type-hole-in-static-abstracts