Ashley Claymore

I think this precedent is more recent than `Object.prototype.toString`. There could have been a `Map.prototype.toString` which produced a detailed representation similar to `Date.prototype.toString`. I’m not sure if that was discussed...

Thanks @rkirsling. How much of a risk do you think there would be if `Tuple.prototype.toString` diverged from `Array.prototype.toString`? For example when refactoring some code from arrays to tuples.

PR #354 opened so implicit `toString` conversion of a Record/Tuple to a string gives a _useful_ string representation. One small thing we would _lose_ with this is that it's no...

Thanks @rkirsling this is great. We'll work through these items.

> 1. I was quite confused by the [ToString table](https://tc39.es/proposal-record-tuple/#sec-tostring) until I saw https://github.com/tc39/proposal-record-tuple/pull/319; if we keep this behavior, we should add a note explaining it. Good idea! > 2....

I _think_ I understand the different perspectives now. I am seeing the word generic as "not specific - can handle any input type". So "nonGeneric" seems correct because the AO...

Thinking some more: Returning an object has the benefit of supporting grouping by `symbol`.

One reason we may not want to rename the spec concept is the word `Record` does appear 769 times in the current 262 spec. Potentially creating too much churn?

> LGTM but probably best to have champions review before merging Thanks! Yeah we'll discuss it. Personally I'm on the fence as per the pro/con in the PR description.

Hey @catamorphism, with your implementer hat on. Do you have a feeling on if this PR helps or hinders?