diff --git a/docs/syntax-structure-matching.md b/docs/syntax-structure-matching.md
index 4080519..b8e2762 100644
--- a/docs/syntax-structure-matching.md
+++ b/docs/syntax-structure-matching.md
@@ -173,30 +173,6 @@ Then desugars again to:
 bar = data["foo"]["bar"]
 ```
 
-To avoid fully qualifying multiple paths, parentheses can be used to share a common prefix:
-
-```Lua
-{ .foo(.bar, myBaz = ["baz"]) }
-```
-
-This desugars once to:
-
-```Lua
-{ .foo.bar, myBaz = .foo["baz"] }
-```
-
-Then desugars twice to:
-
-```Lua
-{ foo = ["foo"]["bar"], myBaz = ["foo"]["baz"] }
-```
-
-Then desugars again to:
-
-```Lua
-local bar, myBaz = data["foo"]["bar"], data["foo"]["baz"]
-```
-
 ## Alternatives
 
 ### Unpack syntax
@@ -331,4 +307,4 @@ match { myFoo = .foo }
 in { myFoo = .foo }
 ```
 
-But this proposal punts on the issue, as this is most relevant for only certain implementations of matching, and so is considered external to the main syntax. We are free to decide on this later, once we know what the syntax looks like inside of the braces, should we agree that braces are desirable in any case.
\ No newline at end of file
+But this proposal punts on the issue, as this is most relevant for only certain implementations of matching, and so is considered external to the main syntax. We are free to decide on this later, once we know what the syntax looks like inside of the braces, should we agree that braces are desirable in any case.