On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 12:10:54 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
> "X.Y.Z. didn't understand the difference between Tuple and TypeTuple".
> => Maybe the "Tuple" part of the name is the problem. We should consider a different name.
>

In which case it makes more sense to change std/typecons:Tuple, since it's the odd one out when comparing with .tupleof and TypeTuple.

On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 12:33:35 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 11:50:09 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 10:16:21 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> Sorry, but this is unhelpful. All you are saying here is that "TypeTuple" is bad. Yes, but we already know that. Everyone agrees on that.
>>
>> The real question is: _What exactly_ is the problem with TypeTuple? The "Type" part of the name? The "Tuple" part? The combination? Maybe it's not the name at all, but the concept, or only some part of its behaviour?
>>
>> Nothing in your post gives us a clue which kind of name would be better. In particular, it doesn't show that `AliasSeq` is any better than `TypeTuple`. So we're changing it from a bad name to one that could be even worse, for all we know.
>>
>> It seems you and deadalnix actually have useful evidence that can answer these questions, but neither of you posted them. Please do!
>
> As already posted in the bike-shedding thread, I'm fine with 'Aliases'.
> Or AliasSeq.
> Or everything that does not have the 'tuple' or 'type' part in it.
> I'm so desperate I would be fine with 'Arguments'!
>
> Please just proceed with something TOTALLY different for this concept

Please reread my post, and then look at your answer again. I asked for evidence, and you posted your opinion.

On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 13:26:48 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 12:33:35 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 11:50:09 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 10:16:21 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Sorry, but this is unhelpful. All you are saying here is that "TypeTuple" is bad. Yes, but we already know that. Everyone agrees on that.
>>>
>>> The real question is: _What exactly_ is the problem with TypeTuple? The "Type" part of the name? The "Tuple" part? The combination? Maybe it's not the name at all, but the concept, or only some part of its behaviour?
>>>
>>> Nothing in your post gives us a clue which kind of name would be better. In particular, it doesn't show that `AliasSeq` is any better than `TypeTuple`. So we're changing it from a bad name to one that could be even worse, for all we know.
>>>
>>> It seems you and deadalnix actually have useful evidence that can answer these questions, but neither of you posted them. Please do!
>>
>> As already posted in the bike-shedding thread, I'm fine with 'Aliases'.
>> Or AliasSeq.
>> Or everything that does not have the 'tuple' or 'type' part in it.
>> I'm so desperate I would be fine with 'Arguments'!
>>
>> Please just proceed with something TOTALLY different for this concept
>
> Please reread my post, and then look at your answer again. I asked for evidence, and you posted your opinion.

Again, that's not "my opinion", these are facts, collected everyday in my working room, and I'm just reporting them.

The problem lays in the "Tuple" word, and in the "Type" word, so just avoid them completely.

It is up to you, D developers, to take care of our experiences, as we must teach D, or just ignore them.

You are free to judge them as you want, but I don't have the burden to prove anything, as my company is a business user of D, not a contributor.

I just don't understand why, every single time, we business users report our experience, they are just labeled as 'opinions', or they are declassed to minor problems, as in the never ending 'break-my-code' discussions.
---
Paolo

On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 11:55:01 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 11:23:07 UTC, Elvis Zhou wrote:
>> WTF does 'Seq' means?
>> AliasSequence is much better!
>
> Seq is a function that maps natural numbers to values in the set X.
>
> «A finite sequence is a finite indexed set of values of the same type, whose domain is a contiguous set of positive integers starting at 1.»
>
> In Z-notation:
>
> «seq X is the set of all finite sequences of values of X , that is, of finite functions from the set 1 . . n, for some n, to elements of X .»
>
> «seq1 X is the set of all non-empty finite sequences of values of X .»
>
> «iseq X is the set of injective finite sequences over X : these are precisely the
> finite sequences over X which contain no repetitions.»

Good to know, thanks.
However, isn't AliasSequence more clear and does eliminate ambiguity?
Moreover, as a nonnative English speaker, I've no idea how to pronounce Seq :(

On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 12:34:13 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 12:10:54 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
>> "X.Y.Z. didn't understand the difference between Tuple and TypeTuple".
>> => Maybe the "Tuple" part of the name is the problem. We should consider a different name.
>>
>
> In which case it makes more sense to change std/typecons:Tuple, since it's the odd one out when comparing with .tupleof and TypeTuple.

Yes, tuples are supposed to be:
- immutable
- subject to structural typing only

So typecons.Tuple is not a tuple… Which probably just adds to the confusion...

On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 14:00:29 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 13:26:48 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 12:33:35 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 11:50:09 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 10:16:21 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but this is unhelpful. All you are saying here is that "TypeTuple" is bad. Yes, but we already know that. Everyone agrees on that.
>>>>
>>>> The real question is: _What exactly_ is the problem with TypeTuple? The "Type" part of the name? The "Tuple" part? The combination? Maybe it's not the name at all, but the concept, or only some part of its behaviour?
>>>>
>>>> Nothing in your post gives us a clue which kind of name would be better. In particular, it doesn't show that `AliasSeq` is any better than `TypeTuple`. So we're changing it from a bad name to one that could be even worse, for all we know.
>>>>
>>>> It seems you and deadalnix actually have useful evidence that can answer these questions, but neither of you posted them. Please do!
>>>
>>> As already posted in the bike-shedding thread, I'm fine with 'Aliases'.
>>> Or AliasSeq.
>>> Or everything that does not have the 'tuple' or 'type' part in it.
>>> I'm so desperate I would be fine with 'Arguments'!
>>>
>>> Please just proceed with something TOTALLY different for this concept
>>
>> Please reread my post, and then look at your answer again. I asked for evidence, and you posted your opinion.
>
> Again, that's not "my opinion", these are facts, collected everyday in my working room, and I'm just reporting them.

You wrote "I'm fine with ..." and "Please just proceed with something TOTALLY different", and not much else. How is this anything more than opinion? It is probably based on facts, but where is the evidence for these facts?

>
> The problem lays in the "Tuple" word, and in the "Type" word, so just avoid them completely.

This is already a conclusion you drew from the experiences in your company. But we have no way of knowing how well these conclusions match reality. I don't understand why it's so difficult just to recount a few of your experiences. I already gave a few examples how this could look:

http://forum.dlang.org/post/ynqxgjekwcgaiywlnmrk@forum.dlang.org

Then everyone can judge for themselves whether your conclusions are justified. Given that deadalnix declared this a "repeatable experiment", I don't think this is asking too much.

And really, I'm genuinely interested in that. I don't keep asking for it just to annoy everyone. And if you can't share that information because it involves business secrets, then please just say so.

>
> It is up to you, D developers, to take care of our experiences, as we must teach D, or just ignore them.

We're trying, but you don't share the experiences. You just tell us that you want something changed. But that's like going to a doctor and asking him to operate on you, instead of telling him where you're hurting and giving him the information to decide whether you need surgery at all.

On Wednesday, 29 July 2015 at 11:16:29 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 14:00:29 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 13:26:48 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 12:33:35 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 11:50:09 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 10:16:21 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but this is unhelpful. All you are saying here is that "TypeTuple" is bad. Yes, but we already know that. Everyone agrees on that.
>>>>>
>>>>> The real question is: _What exactly_ is the problem with TypeTuple? The "Type" part of the name? The "Tuple" part? The combination? Maybe it's not the name at all, but the concept, or only some part of its behaviour?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing in your post gives us a clue which kind of name would be better. In particular, it doesn't show that `AliasSeq` is any better than `TypeTuple`. So we're changing it from a bad name to one that could be even worse, for all we know.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems you and deadalnix actually have useful evidence that can answer these questions, but neither of you posted them. Please do!
>>>>
>>>> As already posted in the bike-shedding thread, I'm fine with 'Aliases'.
>>>> Or AliasSeq.
>>>> Or everything that does not have the 'tuple' or 'type' part in it.
>>>> I'm so desperate I would be fine with 'Arguments'!
>>>>
>>>> Please just proceed with something TOTALLY different for this concept
>>>
>>> Please reread my post, and then look at your answer again. I asked for evidence, and you posted your opinion.
>>
>> Again, that's not "my opinion", these are facts, collected everyday in my working room, and I'm just reporting them.
>
> You wrote "I'm fine with ..." and "Please just proceed with something TOTALLY different", and not much else. How is this anything more than opinion? It is probably based on facts, but where is the evidence for these facts?

For sure it's based on facts, but, again and again, I don't have the burden to prove anything.

>> The problem lays in the "Tuple" word, and in the "Type" word, so just avoid them completely.
>
> This is already a conclusion you drew from the experiences in your company. But we have no way of knowing how well these conclusions match reality. I don't understand why it's so difficult just to recount a few of your experiences. I already gave a few examples how this could look:
>
> http://forum.dlang.org/post/ynqxgjekwcgaiywlnmrk@forum.dlang.org
>
> Then everyone can judge for themselves whether your conclusions are justified. Given that deadalnix declared this a "repeatable experiment", I don't think this is asking too much.
>
> And really, I'm genuinely interested in that. I don't keep asking for it just to annoy everyone. And if you can't share that information because it involves business secrets, then please just say so.

Again, and again, you can try it yourself, it's a repeatable experiment, as deadalnix said: just try yourself, teach D, and take your conclusion.

I'm not a contributor, my day it's already made by 30hrs, I can't simply afford the effort.

>> It is up to you, D developers, to take care of our experiences, as we must teach D, or just ignore them.
>
> We're trying, but you don't share the experiences. You just tell us that you want something changed. But that's like going to a doctor and asking him to operate on you, instead of telling him where you're hurting and giving him the information to decide whether you need surgery at all.

I'm trying to understand why you are the doctor and I am the common man.

So, what kind of experience you have, more than me, in teaching D to newcomers, turning them in efficient programmers in short time?

I've done my diagnosis, that's my work: I'm a CTO, I earn over evaluations of technologies.

Feel free to doubt, and feel free to perform all the examinations you prefer, they are repeatable, and take your conclusion.
---
Paolo

So to summarize, you've done the experiments, but don't want to share the data. That's sad, but of course it's your right. Maybe someone else will want to contribute something...

On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 14:05:47 UTC, Elvis Zhou wrote:
> Good to know, thanks.
> However, isn't AliasSequence more clear and does eliminate ambiguity?
> Moreover, as a nonnative English speaker, I've no idea how to pronounce Seq :(

Well, I don't think "seq" or "sequence" are descriptive for what TypeTuple does… Just pointing out common definitions for "Seq", "Seq1" etc since you asked.

"Aliases", "Parameters", "Pack" , "List" etc would be more descriptive given that the elements of TypeTuple is not drawn from a typed set, but basically anything that isn't a list…

On Wednesday, 29 July 2015 at 12:40:57 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
> So, what kind of experience you have, more than me, in teaching D to newcomers, turning them in efficient programmers in short time?

I have no experience in teaching D, but I have been teaching programming in the past, and I'd feel awkward explaining some of the terminology that D uses. Including "AliasSeq" and "Tuple".