On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:50:25AM -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 7/15/15 8:49 PM, Mike wrote:
> >1. "AliasSeq" is no good as evident from the first post that started this thread
> 
> I am egging my face for starting this. Can we please return to AliasSeq? -- Andrei

Yes, let's please return to AliasSeq. It's a pretty lousy name, but all the alternatives are even worse. Let's not fix the problem by making it worse.


T

-- 
Help a man when he is in trouble and he will remember you when he is in trouble again.

On 7/16/15 11:59 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:50:25AM -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On 7/15/15 8:49 PM, Mike wrote:
>>> 1. "AliasSeq" is no good as evident from the first post that started
>>> this thread
>>
>> I am egging my face for starting this. Can we please return to
>> AliasSeq? -- Andrei
>
> Yes, let's please return to AliasSeq. It's a pretty lousy name, but all
> the alternatives are even worse. Let's not fix the problem by making it
> worse.

WE HAVE CONSENSUS! :o)

(Well... anyone else in favor?)


Andrei

On Thursday, 16 July 2015 at 16:13:46 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> I am egging my face for starting this. Can we please return to
>>> AliasSeq? -- Andrei
>>
>> Yes, let's please return to AliasSeq. It's a pretty lousy name, but all
>> the alternatives are even worse. Let's not fix the problem by making it
>> worse.
>
> WE HAVE CONSENSUS! :o)
>
> (Well... anyone else in favor?)
>
>
> Andrei

Yes.

(It is far down on my list of preferred choices, but it is still on the half which is _endurable_.)

On Thursday, 16 July 2015 at 16:13:46 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> WE HAVE CONSENSUS! :o)
>
> (Well... anyone else in favor?)

You should ask if anyone is against if you want consensus.

On Thursday, 16 July 2015 at 05:44:29 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> Oh, here is one more term you can consider:
>
> "AliasPack"
>
> In Python "splatting" is called "unpacking" ("splat" refers to the visual impression of the "*" operator and is inappropriate).
>
> C++ also have related use of the word "pack":
>
> http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/parameter_pack
>
> So in C++ all of the terms "list", "sequence" and "pack" can be used about parameter lists… but "list" is the general term: argument list, parameter list, initializer list etc…

Pack was my first choice, but it did seem to stick amongst the community when I asked around. I'd be happy with pack.

On Thursday, 16 July 2015 at 17:10:57 UTC, Deadalnix wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 July 2015 at 05:44:29 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>> Oh, here is one more term you can consider:
>>
>> "AliasPack"
>>
>> In Python "splatting" is called "unpacking" ("splat" refers to the visual impression of the "*" operator and is inappropriate).
>>
>> C++ also have related use of the word "pack":
>>
>> http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/parameter_pack
>>
>> So in C++ all of the terms "list", "sequence" and "pack" can be used about parameter lists… but "list" is the general term: argument list, parameter list, initializer list etc…
>
> Pack was my first choice, but it did seem to stick amongst the community when I asked around. I'd be happy with pack.

FWIW, just like "Nat" often is used to denote natural numbers, "Seq" is often used in formalizations of sequences, e.g. stuff that falls under this definition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence#Formal_definition

So "AliasSeq" is counter-intuitive to me, it does not fit with any use of the term "Seq" I have been in touch with...

Basically, to me "Seq" represent series of values, not "configurations".

On Thursday, 16 July 2015 at 16:13:46 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 7/16/15 11:59 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:50:25AM -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>> On 7/15/15 8:49 PM, Mike wrote:
>>>> 1. "AliasSeq" is no good as evident from the first post that started
>>>> this thread
>>>
>>> I am egging my face for starting this. Can we please return to
>>> AliasSeq? -- Andrei
>>
>> Yes, let's please return to AliasSeq. It's a pretty lousy name, but all
>> the alternatives are even worse. Let's not fix the problem by making it
>> worse.
>
> WE HAVE CONSENSUS! :o)
>
> (Well... anyone else in favor?)

Yes, me. ;)

 — David

On Thursday, 16 July 2015 at 17:39:13 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
> Yes, me. ;)

(I should note that this is mainly because I'd really rather not have "Tuple" in the name because of first-hand experience in teaching beginners both on IRC and in person. And AliasSeq seems like the most likely candidate for this right now. I personally like Seq quite a bit too, but I'd rather not join that bikeshedding debate. —David)

On Thursday, 16 July 2015 at 17:39:13 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 July 2015 at 16:13:46 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 7/16/15 11:59 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:50:25AM -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>>> On 7/15/15 8:49 PM, Mike wrote:
>>>>> 1. "AliasSeq" is no good as evident from the first post that started
>>>>> this thread
>>>>
>>>> I am egging my face for starting this. Can we please return to
>>>> AliasSeq? -- Andrei
>>>
>>> Yes, let's please return to AliasSeq. It's a pretty lousy name, but all
>>> the alternatives are even worse. Let's not fix the problem by making it
>>> worse.
>>
>> WE HAVE CONSENSUS! :o)
>>
>> (Well... anyone else in favor?)
>
> Yes, me. ;)
>
>  — David

+1 for AliasSeq

On 16-Jul-2015 19:13, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 7/16/15 11:59 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:50:25AM -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu via
>> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>> On 7/15/15 8:49 PM, Mike wrote:
>>>> 1. "AliasSeq" is no good as evident from the first post that started
>>>> this thread
>>>
>>> I am egging my face for starting this. Can we please return to
>>> AliasSeq? -- Andrei
>>
>> Yes, let's please return to AliasSeq. It's a pretty lousy name, but all
>> the alternatives are even worse. Let's not fix the problem by making it
>> worse.
>
> WE HAVE CONSENSUS! :o)
>
> (Well... anyone else in favor?)

Fine by me.
Being the one who merged that pull in the first place I'm somewhat biased...


-- 
Dmitry Olshansky