On Thursday, 16 July 2015 at 15:50:15 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 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

What about the Pack name? There was considerable support for it, and at least in this thread I haven't seen anyone opposing it.

(And from my POV, *Seq is really the worst of all choices, as it has connotations in everyday language and other uses in mathematics that don't match TypeTuples at all, so I'm strongly opposed to it.)

On Friday, 17 July 2015 at 08:57:26 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 July 2015 at 15:50:15 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 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
>
> What about the Pack name? There was considerable support for it, and at least in this thread I haven't seen anyone opposing it.
>
> (And from my POV, *Seq is really the worst of all choices, as it has connotations in everyday language and other uses in mathematics that don't match TypeTuples at all, so I'm strongly opposed to it.)

FWIW

Pack > Seq

On Friday, 17 July 2015 at 09:13:13 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
> On Friday, 17 July 2015 at 08:57:26 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
>> On Thursday, 16 July 2015 at 15:50:15 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 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
>>
>> What about the Pack name? There was considerable support for it, and at least in this thread I haven't seen anyone opposing it.
>>
>> (And from my POV, *Seq is really the worst of all choices, as it has connotations in everyday language and other uses in mathematics that don't match TypeTuples at all, so I'm strongly opposed to it.)
>
> FWIW
>
> Pack > Seq

Sack (a compromise between Seq and Pack)

On 17-Jul-2015 12:52, Matthias Bentrup wrote:
> On Friday, 17 July 2015 at 09:13:13 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
>> On Friday, 17 July 2015 at 08:57:26 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 16 July 2015 at 15:50:15 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 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
>>>
>>> What about the Pack name? There was considerable support for it, and
>>> at least in this thread I haven't seen anyone opposing it.
>>>
>>> (And from my POV, *Seq is really the worst of all choices, as it has
>>> connotations in everyday language and other uses in mathematics that
>>> don't match TypeTuples at all, so I'm strongly opposed to it.)
>>
>> FWIW
>>
>> Pack > Seq
>
> Sack (a compromise between Seq and Pack)
>
Ransack must be the first algorithm on AliasSack ;)

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky

On Friday, 17 July 2015 at 00:08:42 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
> Well this was 214 replies of wasted time...

Just b/c the outcome is the same doesn't mean the discussion was pointless.
We reached at least some sort of consensus which should prevent any future complaints about the chosen name.

On Friday, 17 July 2015 at 10:15:05 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> On Friday, 17 July 2015 at 00:08:42 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
>> Well this was 214 replies of wasted time...
>
> Just b/c the outcome is the same doesn't mean the discussion was pointless.
> We reached at least some sort of consensus which should prevent any future complaints about the chosen name.

No, you did not reach consensus, and there will be future complaints about the terminology used in D (unless the language dies). If you pick inconsistent terminology that breaks established usage, people will complain…

So it was wasted time. And more time will be wasted the same way, due to a lack of process.

If you want consistency you need 2-4 people who know the field really well and reach actual consensus. When too many people who don't know the field really well are involved you get bastardized syntax.

The vocabulary should not be defined name by name, function by function. It should be, you know, an index that you can reference. So a set is a set, a sequence is a sequence, and array an array, a list a list, a linked-list a linked-list and so on.

A well designed language has a small vocabulary with not much overlap and expressiveness grow out of it. That way you don't have to memorize so much.

If you need to read the docs to deduce what goes on in a function then it isn't good enough. Which is why constructs with weird behaviour should have longer descriptive names.

In this case, you wanted a short unique name to describe weird behaviour. That's going to make code hard to read.

On Friday, 17 July 2015 at 10:15:05 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> On Friday, 17 July 2015 at 00:08:42 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
>> Well this was 214 replies of wasted time...
>
> Just b/c the outcome is the same doesn't mean the discussion was pointless.
> We reached at least some sort of consensus which should prevent any future complaints about the chosen name.

On that, perhaps this conversation should be linked to in the wiki before it gets buried? So any complains/questions may be directed here?

On 7/16/15 8:08 PM, Tofu Ninja wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 July 2015 at 23:54:30 UTC, Mike wrote:
>> On Thursday, 16 July 2015 at 15:50:15 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 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
>>
>> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3498
>
> Well this was 214 replies of wasted time...

That's right, and I'm at fault. Apologies to all. -- Andrei

On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 at 21:44:37 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 07/15/2015 05:35 PM, Dicebot wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 at 15:29:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I agree.
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>
>> I want to point out that statement "an alias tuple can have both
>> expressions and types" is somewhat between imprecise and just wrong with
>> current compiler implementation. `X!(42, int, foo)` doesn't hold aliases
>> to value, type and symbol (assuming X(T...)) - it does hold actual value
>> and type, with only symbol being aliased. Actual alias tuple would be
>> defined as `X(alias a, alias b, alias c)` and is somewhat different thing.
>>
>> You may want to ignore that difference for simplicity sake but it needs
>> to be explicitly acknowledged.
>
> It should instead be acknowledged that there /should/ be no difference in what three things can be passed to X(T...) and X(alias a, alias b, alias c). The X(T...) if(T.length==k) pattern is ridiculous.

I can't agree more.

On 7/7/2015 2:16 PM, 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?

Should just be "Aliases". I recall that my naming of "setExt()" was universally panned for using an abbreviation. "Aliases" doesn't carry any baggage about how it might be accessed.