I have also no horse in this race, I’m actually OK with the current proposal as it is (besides one small syntactic quirk). But I do think that named tuples will become a very important feature in the long run.
The point is: Others had serious objections to the current approach, witch should be taken into account I think.
It’s maybe theoretical hair splitting, but theory is important as it’s the ground on which everything stands.
Maybe it makes no difference in practice. But who knows?
The whole feature couldn’t be even tested in its full glory as it’s still not even fully implemented! (Maybe in some nighlies, I didn’t try)
Nobody knows whether automatically inserted .toTuple calls are good enough as there was literally no testing period at all.
That’s why I ask once more: Why this rush? Better taking longer and delivering something (close to) perfect than rushing a potentially problematic solution just to have “something” out.
Once commited it will be hard to change this again so it’s important that the solution is as flawless as possible.
BTW: There is also still the option to not have any sub-typing relation (for now).
In theory conversions in both directions could be based on methods and not on sub-typing. (But no clue what kind of worms could come out of this, as there is again no way to test this).