On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 07:13:08 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 06:49:10 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>
>> I expect others here to grow up a bit
>
>> Yet, there is a large crow of idiots (sorry if you are in that crowd, on that one you ARE an idiot)
>
> You trolling right now?

I'm not. I would certainly have put this in a nicer manner given different circumstance, and certainly should have. But the point remains.

There are facts. Fact is, several persons reported that actual, real life newcomer are confused by tuple. As the experiment is repeatable we are not dealing with in the anecdotal anymore.

The fact the the poll show this result as a first one tells us that a good chunk of voters are either unaware of the evidence (there is nothing wrong with being ignorant, but don't try to influence results when you are or you'll be received as it should, with ridicule) or willfully choose to ignore ignore them which is worse. This CANNOT be taken seriously.

On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 08:00:40 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 06:49:10 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>> Come on, all people that got into this know how newcomer react
>> to the Tuple name noticed the same reaction.
>
> No, that highly depends on the background of the newcomer, everyone I introduced D to , only found it confusing that it was named Type*.
>
> Type* = A construct that powerful it can contain Type:s as well?
>
> Whereas the intuitive meaning would be:
>
> Type* = A construct that is limited to Type:s only.
>

Yes, that is very true. The "Type" part of the old name was confusing.

> Before this thread I didn't realize newcomers found the Tuple part confusing, I know that's the case now, but after viewing the poll, it seems to be a minority. But then again, how many newcomers would find Seq confusing, we will never know.

Experience show that the tuple part of the old name was confusing as well.

The poll was not answered by newcomers but by users of this forum. Most of them are experienced D users and already know what to expect from the construct.

On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 21:26:24 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 16:54:54 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>
>> Because, among other things, it auto-expands.
>>
>>
>> T
>
> 1) .tupleof auto-expands and changing it at this point would cause epic breakage.(I also see no reason to.)
>

This is actually a very good point. First of, tupleof does not return a TypeTuple, but they have something similar in nature. This concept need a name, preferably a name that do not elicit confusion.

Even if we dodge the problem now by going for Aliases, this concept would still require a name. Using tuple for that concept just confuses people.

> 2) Even the tuple in std.typecons has a manual .expand property, i.e. it may not be auto-expanding but it reaffirms that expanding is a common operation on tuples.(the same is not true for arrays, lists, etc.)
>

If tuple have an .expand property, it is because the tuple and the expanded version of it are two different things.

This is confusing to name that thing a tuple as well. I do think this would be a mistake to name this anything like array or list as, if close, they are not quite the same and I suspect these name would elicit the same result as tuple does. That being said, I can only speculate for these, while I can assert it for tuple.

> 3) At the risk of sounding like a broken record: Tuple is the poster-child of heterogeneous constructs.

Yes, I know that strictly speaking, a tuple may well be auto expanding. But here you get into the Monad problem (ie: once you understand what a monad is, you loose all capacity to explain it to someone who don't).

There is the strict definition of the word, and there is what people expect out of it. When going academic, you want the first one. But, because you go for the first one, you end up saying things like "A monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors" which is certainly true, but won't help much when you try to actually use it.

It turns out that indeed, a tuple may well be auto expanding stricto sensu, but it is not what people expect of a tuple when they meet one.

On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 22:25:22 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> I'm not. I would certainly have put this in a nicer manner given different circumstance, and certainly should have. But the point remains.
>
> There are facts. Fact is, several persons reported that actual, real life newcomer are confused by tuple. As the experiment is repeatable we are not dealing with in the anecdotal anymore.
>
> The fact the the poll show this result as a first one tells us that a good chunk of voters are either unaware of the evidence (there is nothing wrong with being ignorant, but don't try to influence results when you are or you'll be received as it should, with ridicule) or willfully choose to ignore ignore them which is worse. This CANNOT be taken seriously.

All the poll shows is what people like(or hate the least), Walter and Andrei can interpret that how ever they wish. I am not arguing for or against any of the names(they all suck).

We get it, you think tuple is a bad name, you keep coming back and repeating the same arguments. Everyone gets it. But if people don't share in your opinion or don't think it is as bad as you make it out to be then they have that right, that does not make them ignorant or an idiot. Your ad hominem attacks are really not needed.

Personally I don't like tuple that much either, I would prefer AliasList, but I like it better than AliasSeq and far better than Aliases.

On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 22:58:27 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
> All the poll shows is what people like(or hate the least), Walter and Andrei can interpret that how ever they wish. I am not arguing for or against any of the names(they all suck).
>
> We get it, you think tuple is a bad name, you keep coming back and repeating the same arguments. Everyone gets it. But if people don't share in your opinion or don't think it is as bad as you make it out to be then they have that right, that does not make them ignorant or an idiot. Your ad hominem attacks are really not needed.
>

Facts are not oppinions. Deal with it.

On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 23:06:51 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> Facts are not oppinions. Deal with it.

It is fact that some people found the name TypeTuple confusing, nothing else.

You have the opinion that "tuple" should disqualify the name "AliasTuple", some clearly dont agree with that.

Why is this getting so toxic, it's just a name...

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 11:27:01PM +0000, Tofu Ninja via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 23:06:51 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> >Facts are not oppinions. Deal with it.
> 
> It is fact that some people found the name TypeTuple confusing, nothing else.
> 
> You have the opinion that "tuple" should disqualify the name "AliasTuple", some clearly dont agree with that.
> 
> Why is this getting so toxic, it's just a name...

Sounds like we need to invoke the bikeshedding equivalent of Godwin's Law, right about now. :-P


T

-- 
Acid falls with the rain; with love comes the pain.

On 07/22/2015 12:53 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 21:26:24 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 16:54:54 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>>
>>> Because, among other things, it auto-expands.
>>>
>>>
>>> T
>>
>> 1) .tupleof auto-expands and changing it at this point would cause
>> epic breakage.(I also see no reason to.)
>>
>
> This is actually a very good point. First of, tupleof does not return a
> TypeTuple, but they have something similar in nature.

What's the difference? There shouldn't be any.

On Wednesday, 22 July 2015 at 04:44:48 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 07/22/2015 12:53 AM, deadalnix wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 21:26:24 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 16:54:54 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Because, among other things, it auto-expands.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> T
>>>
>>> 1) .tupleof auto-expands and changing it at this point would cause
>>> epic breakage.(I also see no reason to.)
>>>
>>
>> This is actually a very good point. First of, tupleof does not return a
>> TypeTuple, but they have something similar in nature.
>
> What's the difference? There shouldn't be any.

You can't put runtime values into the first one, you can into the second one.

On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 23:27:03 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 23:06:51 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>> Facts are not oppinions. Deal with it.
>
> It is fact that some people found the name TypeTuple confusing, nothing else.
>
> You have the opinion that "tuple" should disqualify the name "AliasTuple", some clearly dont agree with that.
>
> Why is this getting so toxic, it's just a name...

That is a very good question. The answer is because many are ready to waste everybody's time with uneducated opinion because "it is just a name".