On 7/15/15 3:50 AM, Dicebot wrote:
> Good to see another bad name merged in master ^_^

So now we're at AliasTuple? -- Andrei

On 7/15/15 4:29 AM, Mike wrote:
> On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 at 07:50:46 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> Good to see another bad name merged in master ^_^
>
> Was there a good name suggested that wasn't vetoed by Walter or Andrei?

s/good name/name that I like/

FTFY


Andrei

On 7/15/15 7:39 AM, Mike wrote:
> FYI, I didn't expect the AliasTuple PR to be merged so quickly.

Me neither. Since the bikeshedding gates have been opened, let the flood subside a little before taking action. -- Andrei

On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 at 11:49:46 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 7/15/15 3:50 AM, Dicebot wrote:
>> Good to see another bad name merged in master ^_^
>
> So now we're at AliasTuple? -- Andrei

Well at least I have noticed notification about that being merged into Phobos master in my mailbox. I was not following this thread itself much.

On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 at 11:39:23 UTC, Mike wrote:
> On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 at 09:32:07 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>
>> This was how original (Meta)List was chosen - being as bad as any other, it matched terms used by official compiler spec : http://dlang.org/template.html#TemplateParameterList http://dlang.org/template.html#TemplateArgumentList (and related docs)
>>
>> It is mostly irrelevant though (as long as it is not fundamentally misleading) - the whole issue is not about picking a single name but major cleanup sweeps through dlang.org and Phobos ensuring it is all on same terms and any possible abmiguity is clearly explained.
>
> Your comment resonates with me.  Would TemplateArguments, TemplateArgs, or TemplateArgList make things any better in your opinion?

TemplateArgumentList (and derivatives) was the name I was pushing for originally but I got a lot of feedback that such names are both long and put too much semantical pressure into something that is used for many different unrelated purposes. Which felt reasonable.

Again, name doesn't matter that much. What matters is someone putting effort into propagating it to all docs / derivative names. I did my turn for that and it got reverted - now everyone is back to square one discussing names. Something we already did (and much more) in 2013 when there was a sort of "tuple season" in NG.

Bikeshedding it over and over again with an expectation that next merged name will be "good enough" simply won't work.

On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 at 08:29:40 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 at 08:13:20 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 at 07:50:46 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>> Good to see another bad name merged in master ^_^
>>
>> Yep, same feeling here....
>
> At this point, I think that it's simply a question of which bad name we go with. None of them are particularly good, and there's a lot of disagreement about almost all of them - and if there's a lot of agreement, it's about how bad the name is, not how good it is.
>
> I'd be very surprised to ever get real agreement on this. There simply isn't a good name for it. And if Walter and Andrei like AliasTuple, it's probably going to stick (and Andrei does seem to like it; no idea about Walter).
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Tuple is the only name where we have actual, factual feedback. Hanging in the d irc chan for years, it is apparent that calling this tuple confuse people. That is a fact.

On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 at 11:49:46 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 7/15/15 3:50 AM, Dicebot wrote:
>> Good to see another bad name merged in master ^_^
>
> So now we're at AliasTuple? -- Andrei

Please go for splat. It turns out it is used by functional guy, in various scripting languages and in the compiler backend communities.

The thing we are trying to name is a splat.

Also, I don't have any veto, but if I had one, tuple would get it. I've been hanging around for a while and seen so many being confused by d tuples that persisting in that direction would be a religious decision.

On 7/15/15 9:28 AM, Deadalnix wrote:
> On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 at 08:29:40 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 at 08:13:20 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 at 07:50:46 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>>> Good to see another bad name merged in master ^_^
>>>
>>> Yep, same feeling here....
>>
>> At this point, I think that it's simply a question of which bad name
>> we go with. None of them are particularly good, and there's a lot of
>> disagreement about almost all of them - and if there's a lot of
>> agreement, it's about how bad the name is, not how good it is.
>>
>> I'd be very surprised to ever get real agreement on this. There simply
>> isn't a good name for it. And if Walter and Andrei like AliasTuple,
>> it's probably going to stick (and Andrei does seem to like it; no idea
>> about Walter).
>>
>> - Jonathan M Davis
>
> Tuple is the only name where we have actual, factual feedback. Hanging
> in the d irc chan for years, it is apparent that calling this tuple
> confuse people. That is a fact.

It doesn't confuse me. We have type tuples and expression tuples defined in the spec. An alias tuple can have both expressions and types. It's not that confusing. What was confusing is that a TypeTuple was not a type tuple as defined in the spec.

All those tuples are already not the same as tuples as defined from other languages. So all three explanations are going to confuse some people. I don't think we can come up with a name that doesn't confuse some set of people.

This issue of naming this one thing is so long in the tooth, we need to just move on IMO.

-Steve

On 7/15/15 7:52 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 7/15/15 7:39 AM, Mike wrote:
>> FYI, I didn't expect the AliasTuple PR to be merged so quickly.
>
> Me neither. Since the bikeshedding gates have been opened, let the flood
> subside a little before taking action. -- Andrei

Let's consider that this decision HAS to be made before 2.068 is released, we can't change the name again. So any delay for this delays that.

One option is to revert to TypeTuple for 2.068 and change the name later.

-Steve

On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 at 13:47:21 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On 7/15/15 9:28 AM, Deadalnix wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 at 08:29:40 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> Tuple is the only name where we have actual, factual feedback. Hanging
>> in the d irc chan for years, it is apparent that calling this tuple
>> confuse people. That is a fact.
>
> It doesn't confuse me. We have type tuples and expression tuples defined in the spec. An alias tuple can have both expressions and types. It's not that confusing. What was confusing is that a TypeTuple was not a type tuple as defined in the spec.
>
> All those tuples are already not the same as tuples as defined from other languages. So all three explanations are going to confuse some people. I don't think we can come up with a name that doesn't confuse some set of people.
>
> This issue of naming this one thing is so long in the tooth, we need to just move on IMO.
>
> -Steve

To repeat what I already said, the issue is not the name but the documentation.

How many here have read the page on tuples?
http://dlang.org/tuple.html

Give it a read through and tell me you aren't confused as hell.