Note: I've been curious what explicit destructuring is expected to look like.
As have we all :)
The underlying model for how destructuring works was discussed at my JVMLS talk last year (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3_8YcYKScw) but it didn't explore the syntax of how you would declare a matcher either. We're currently struggling with finding a way to express this that (a) supports all the desired degrees of freedom, (b) is not bizarre, and (c) can be mechanically translated to something efficient. I have some ideas but as this is a feature that's much farther down the road (first we need basic pattern matching, then we need destructuring matching on records, before hand-written matchers are a requirement), I'd rather not distract the conversation with a syntax-oriented discussion. I am working on a more concrete list of requirements for what explicit matchers need to support, but I've been sitting on that because I want to get the basics on a more solid footing first.
