These are 3 proposals in one. 

The first will be solved at some time after Pattern Matching. It will not be required, but should be possible to supply designators. 

The second and third. Much like types, you want to reuse your concepts, so inline declaration is of limited value, 
especially considering the concept will need more then you expressed with your syntax. For example - is the type copyable, movable etc? 


On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 2:54 PM Omer Rosler via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
Hi,
I've being working on the "dark side of structured binding" which are inherently not type safe.
If you get the order wrong, and the arguments are of the same type, then it is an error detectable only at runtime.

The solution I propose is adding "named tuples" via anonymous concepts and unnamed structs.

In order to get the proposed semantics right, more use cases should be considered and I look to this mailing list for help.

The proposal draft is at https://github.com/OmerRosler/named_tuples/tree/0.1
--
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals