It's because i think we don't need to single out deconstructor from the rest of the other methods that can be called by a pattern.
I get why you think that, but I think that would be a serious mistake. Constructors have a number of subtle differences from ordinary static methods -- and it turns out it makes total sense for deconstruction patterns to have those exact same differences compared to static "method patterns."
In any case, I think you're (still) jumping ahead in the story (or letting your own thoughts of how you want the story to end drag you off course.) Can we stay focused on the topic of this document, which is the role of patterns in the object model? I know you really want to get on to the "what does the declaration of a method pattern look like" part, but that's still a future conversation, and the syntax (ou pres-de-syntax) issues are getting in the way of discussing the far more important underlying concepts.
