On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 06:49:10 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> Some of the proposals do not even make any sense. Come on, all people that got into this know how newcomer react to the Tuple name noticed the same reaction. Yet, there is a large crow of idiots (sorry if you are in that crowd, on that one you ARE an idiot) that will send that proposal in again and again. Anyone that proposed that name at this point should only be laughed at, as it is clearly the manifestation of someone that have not deal first hand with the problems of the historical name and is serving as a living example of Dunning Kruger.

i get that TypeTuple is confusing as it is not _limited_ to types,
but why is it not a tuple?

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 04:06:11PM +0000, Zoadian via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 06:49:10 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> >Some of the proposals do not even make any sense. Come on, all people that got into this know how newcomer react to the Tuple name noticed the same reaction. Yet, there is a large crow of idiots (sorry if you are in that crowd, on that one you ARE an idiot) that will send that proposal in again and again. Anyone that proposed that name at this point should only be laughed at, as it is clearly the manifestation of someone that have not deal first hand with the problems of the historical name and is serving as a living example of Dunning Kruger.
> 
> i get that TypeTuple is confusing as it is not _limited_ to types, but why is it not a tuple?

Because, among other things, it auto-expands.


T

-- 
PNP = Plug 'N' Pray

On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 16:54:54 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 04:06:11PM +0000, Zoadian via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 06:49:10 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>> >Some of the proposals do not even make any sense. Come on, all people that got into this know how newcomer react to the Tuple name noticed the same reaction. Yet, there is a large crow of idiots (sorry if you are in that crowd, on that one you ARE an idiot) that will send that proposal in again and again. Anyone that proposed that name at this point should only be laughed at, as it is clearly the manifestation of someone that have not deal first hand with the problems of the historical name and is serving as a living example of Dunning Kruger.
>> 
>> i get that TypeTuple is confusing as it is not _limited_ to types, but why is it not a tuple?
>
> Because, among other things, it auto-expands.
>
>
> T

I agree that auto-expansion is a bit unexpected (documentation does not even mention it...). But by that logic it's not a 'Sequence', 'List' or 'Pack' either.

Can't we just call it Unpack!() then?

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 05:55:41PM +0000, Zoadian via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 16:54:54 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 04:06:11PM +0000, Zoadian via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
> >>i get that TypeTuple is confusing as it is not _limited_ to types, but why is it not a tuple?
> >
> >Because, among other things, it auto-expands.
> >
> >
> >T
> 
> I agree that auto-expansion is a bit unexpected (documentation does not even mention it...). But by that logic it's not a 'Sequence', 'List' or 'Pack' either.
> 
> Can't we just call it Unpack!() then?
[...]

This, and other similar proposals, have been already all been considered in the past.  The conclusion was, and still is, that *none* of these names are perfectly satisfactory. Prolonging this thread with new proposals (that are actually just rehashes of long-dead proposals) isn't getting us anywhere.

This is all missing the point, though, which is that we're wasting time arguing over a miserable little identifier, when there are far more important things we need to be working on right now. I wish we would just call it Zxkuqyb and let it rest already.


T

-- 
For every argument for something, there is always an equal and opposite argument against it. Debates don't give answers, only wounded or inflated egos.

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 don't think that I'd say that he's trolling, but his anger clearly got the better of him.

I agree with the gist of what he said, though I certainly would not have said it the way that he did.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 18:15:08 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> I wish we would just call it Zxkuqyb and let it rest already.

If we're going to do something like that, why not go for the geek cred and go for XYZZY? ;)

> For every argument for something, there is always an equal and opposite argument against it. Debates don't give answers, only wounded or inflated egos.

This one doesn't seem as random as most of your quotes... Methinks that you rigged this one. :)

- Jonathan M Davis

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 06:23:25PM +0000, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 18:15:08 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >I wish we would just call it Zxkuqyb and let it rest already.
> 
> If we're going to do something like that, why not go for the geek cred and go for XYZZY? ;)

Have you googled Zxkuqyb? ;-)


> >For every argument for something, there is always an equal and opposite argument against it. Debates don't give answers, only wounded or inflated egos.
> 
> This one doesn't seem as random as most of your quotes... Methinks that you rigged this one. :)
[...]

Haha, actually, I didn't rig this one. My Perl script can sometimes be surprisingly on-topic. But I think it's just a coincidence, since usually when it's not on-topic nobody notices.


T

-- 
What doesn't kill me makes me stranger.

On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 18:32:26 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 06:23:25PM +0000, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 18:15:08 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> >I wish we would just call it Zxkuqyb and let it rest already.
>> 
>> If we're going to do something like that, why not go for the geek cred and go for XYZZY? ;)
>
> Have you googled Zxkuqyb? ;-)

Nope. That one does look pretty geeky too. Sadly, I've never played an Ultima game, which would be why I didn't catch the reference. Good stuff though.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 19:00:18 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 18:32:26 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 06:23:25PM +0000, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 18:15:08 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>> >I wish we would just call it Zxkuqyb and let it rest already.
>>> 
>>> If we're going to do something like that, why not go for the geek cred and go for XYZZY? ;)
>>
>> Have you googled Zxkuqyb? ;-)
>
> Nope. That one does look pretty geeky too. Sadly, I've never played an Ultima game, which would be why I didn't catch the reference. Good stuff though.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Lord British was by my side during all my electronic life...

---
Paolo, GM Tamer, Ultima Online, since beta!

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.)

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.)

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