Make with more useful when modifying trees

[TonyValenti]

Suppose I have the following record:

        public record A {
            public long Id { get; init; }
            public A? M2 { get; init; }
            public A? M3 { get; init; }
        }

And I create an instance like so:

            var V1 = new A() {
                Id = 1,
                M2 = new A() {
                    Id = 2,
                },
                M3 = new A() {
                    Id = 3
                }
            };

Today, if I want to modify different areas of the tree, I would use code like this:

            var V2a = V1 with {
                Id = 11,
                M2 = V1.M2 with {
                    Id = 22
                },
                M3 = V1.M3 with {
                    Id = 33,
                }
            };

This is verbose because:

1. I have to reference V1 multiple times.
2. I have to reference M2 and M3 multiple times.

I propose the following two alternatives as more concise shorthands:

Alternative 1

            var V2b = V1 with {
                Id = 11,
                M2 = M2 with {
                    Id = 22
                },
                M3 = M3 with {
                    Id = 33,
                }
            };

A member with the same name as the current member is always in scope (In order to preserve compatibility with other code, it could not hide another variable with the same name).

Alternative 2

            var V2c = V1 with {
                Id = 11,
                M2 with {
                    Id = 22
                },
                M3 with {
                    Id = 33,
                }
            };

Allow withing a member directly.

[TheUnlocked]

I would prefer alternative 2. Alternative 1 has some issues imo:

var V2 = V1 with {
    M2 = M2 with {
         Id = 22
    },
    M3 = M3 with {
        M2 = M3 // Could cause confusion about what M3 refers to here.
    }
};