On Friday, 10 July 2015 at 09:05:10 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> On Friday, 10 July 2015 at 08:42:44 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
>> But he's right that we have auto-expanding and non-expanding tuples, so having a different term for the auto-expanding one would help a bit.
>
> This unpacking is called splatting in some other PLs that have a splat operator. Maybe we can use that to describe the unpackedness, e.g. AliasSplat.

http://www.infoq.com/presentations/functional-pros-cons

On Friday, 10 July 2015 at 09:05:10 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> On Friday, 10 July 2015 at 08:42:44 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
>> But he's right that we have auto-expanding and non-expanding tuples, so having a different term for the auto-expanding one would help a bit.
>
> This unpacking is called splatting in some other PLs that have a splat operator. Maybe we can use that to describe the unpackedness, e.g. AliasSplat.

http://www.infoq.com/presentations/functional-pros-cons

On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 at 21:15:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> So I thought we were supposed to replace bad names with good names. Template arguments are indexable, so "sequence" doesn't quite apply.
>
> What happened? Why are we replacing a crappy term with another crappy term?
>
>
> Andrei

Well, if
    alias Identity(T) = T;
then
    alias Identities(T...) = T;

or just make
     alias Identity(T...) = T;

On Friday, 10 July 2015 at 09:05:10 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> On Friday, 10 July 2015 at 08:42:44 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
>> But he's right that we have auto-expanding and non-expanding tuples, so having a different term for the auto-expanding one would help a bit.
>
> This unpacking is called splatting in some other PLs that have a splat operator. Maybe we can use that to describe the unpackedness, e.g. AliasSplat.

You know what, I in fact start to like splat. This convey exactly what this is and is already used in the same way in other area of programming.

On Monday, 13 July 2015 at 14:24:23 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Friday, 10 July 2015 at 09:05:10 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
>> On Friday, 10 July 2015 at 08:42:44 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
>>> But he's right that we have auto-expanding and non-expanding tuples, so having a different term for the auto-expanding one would help a bit.
>>
>> This unpacking is called splatting in some other PLs that have a splat operator. Maybe we can use that to describe the unpackedness, e.g. AliasSplat.
>
> You know what, I in fact start to like splat. This convey exactly what this is and is already used in the same way in other area of programming.

Is the inverse a squidge?

On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 at 21:15:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> So I thought we were supposed to replace bad names with good names. Template arguments are indexable, so "sequence" doesn't quite apply.
>
> What happened? Why are we replacing a crappy term with another crappy term?
>
>
> Andrei

Splat ? Would that work ?

On Monday, 13 July 2015 at 22:08:27 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 at 21:15:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> So I thought we were supposed to replace bad names with good names. Template arguments are indexable, so "sequence" doesn't quite apply.
>>
>> What happened? Why are we replacing a crappy term with another crappy term?
>>
>>
>> Andrei
>
> Splat ? Would that work ?

Um. Seriously? I don't see how that would result in anything but ridicule. What's D do? It goes splat.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Monday, 13 July 2015 at 22:08:27 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 at 21:15:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> So I thought we were supposed to replace bad names with good names. Template arguments are indexable, so "sequence" doesn't quite apply.
>>
>> What happened? Why are we replacing a crappy term with another crappy term?
>>
>>
>> Andrei
>
> Splat ? Would that work ?

Do you really think Splat is better than the other suggestions in this thread. I really don't want to have to start writing Splat all over my code, just feels dirty...

On Monday, 13 July 2015 at 22:08:27 UTC, deadalnix wrote:

> Splat ? Would that work ?

No.  Just make it AliasList and call it a day.  "List" does not mean unindexable linked list except in the minds of a few.

On 14-Jul-2015 01:55, Mike wrote:
> On Monday, 13 July 2015 at 22:08:27 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>
>> Splat ? Would that work ?
>
> No.  Just make it AliasList and call it a day.  "List" does not mean
> unindexable linked list except in the minds of a few.

Popular != the right thing.
List in CS at large is generally speaking not indexable nor defines such operations. So there may be a lot of people who don't care for what a list is, but that doesn't make list a synonym for sequence.

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky