"Flattened" introduction patterns for intuitionistic conjunction elimination.

The "flattened" introduction patterns (I don't know the official terminology, but I meant the patterns like (H1 & H2 & H3 &H4)) interact in a weird way with intuitionistic conjunction:

In particular, I would expect to get a P from P ∧ Q ∧ R by iDestruct "H" as "(H&_&_)", but it doesn't work this way.

From iris.proofmode Require Import tactics monpred.
From iris.base_logic Require Import base_logic.
Section base_logic_tests.
  Context {M : ucmraT}.
  Implicit Types P Q R : uPred M.

  Lemma test P Q R : (P ∧ Q ∧ R) -∗ P.
  Proof.
    iIntros "H".
    (* This works fine *)
    iDestruct "H" as "(_ & _ & H)".
    Undo.
    iDestruct "H" as "(_ & H & _)".
    Undo.
    (* This results in an error *)
    Fail iDestruct "H" as "(H & _ & _)".
    (* "Proper" way of doing it *)
    iDestruct "H" as "(H & _)".
    done.
  Qed.