Since func() (A, B) is different from func() (A, B, C), I'd expect first-class tuples to do the same. At which point there would be a lot of similarity between

Since func() (A, B) is different from func() (A, B, C), I'd expect first-class tuples to do the same. At which point there would be a lot of similarity between (A, B) and struct{A, B}. Perhaps they should be equivalent? From which "struct{a A, b B} = f()", or even "switch x.(type) { case struct{a A, b B}: ...}", or "case (a A, b B): ..." could follow. It might be too much Rust influence, but it might be a good influence, given there's already a lot of interest in unions/enums/ADTs (but see "start with goals"). The counter-arguments are that "type A struct{}" and "type B struct{}" are different types, and that anonymous structs are seldom found in the wild (likely due to their verbosity), but perhaps this is a chicken-and-egg problem? Go already does local type inference, because "var mypackage.VeryLongThing = mypackage.NewVeryLongThing()" is stupidly repetitive. But there's always a fine balance between code being terse and readable (I will never wrap my head around APL).