Let record types have a constructor. about language

[munificent]

If you want some other function to create a record for you, you need to wrap that up as a function, (int v1, String v2) => (v1, v2).

Is that so bad?

If we ever allow spreading records into argument lists, I could see us also offering some syntax for the opposite: capturing a parameter list as a record. If we did that (let's say the syntax is foo), then it would be:

(int v1, String v2) => foo;

[frmrgr]

I think it would be nice to have this feature. Currently instantiating big records is a bit annoying, as a typo in a field name, or accidentally passing a wrong type (int? instead of a int) somewhere makes IDE highlight the entire (...) expression instead of the wrong part. So the solution is to write out the instantiating function manually (#2528), but nobody got time for that.