On 07/30/2015 09:39 AM, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= <ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang@gmail.com>" wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 July 2015 at 04:20:41 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> type exists in the latter system. D does not have a design that is as
>> principled as that of the systems you draw inspiration from.
> ...

Don't garble quotes like that. Thanks.

> I'm not drawing inspiration from anywhere. I'm talking about how the
> term "sequence"/

You talked extensively about seq.

>"seq" is commonly used both in CS literature and
> elsewhere: a list of related values.
> ...

That's basically what that comment said, modulo possibly a slight movement of goalposts from your side now.

> synonyms: «succession, order, course, series, chain, concatenation,
> train, string, cycle, progression»
>
> If you want do design a language that is pleasant to deal with you need
> to be consistent and principled both when it comes to naming and to
> semantics.
> ...

Well, D fails here.

> If "sequence" is to be understood as a compile time list of random shit
> with a flattening constructor

There's no flattening constructor.

> and auto expansion, then you prevent
> sensible and consistent use of the term in other contexts.
>

I have argued why it can be seen as somewhat sensible and consistent given the constraints, and you have ignored that argument.

Anyway, this is getting tiresome, because you keep changing the specific topic initiated in the subthreads if the original one is not defensible. E.g. here, I was replying to the specific comment that '"alias" is not a set of values if [sic] the same type...'.

I fully agree that "Seq" does not deal with auto-expansion.

Are you using a non-threaded interface by any chance?

Note that I don't have an agenda here. I'm not going to use any library primitive for this that uses more than 3 characters anyway and I am not teaching D to anyone.

On Thursday, 30 July 2015 at 09:45:31 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 07/30/2015 09:39 AM, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= <ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang@gmail.com>" wrote:
>> On Thursday, 30 July 2015 at 04:20:41 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>> type exists in the latter system. D does not have a design that is as
>>> principled as that of the systems you draw inspiration from.
>> ...
>
> Don't garble quotes like that. Thanks.

No garbling. I quote as little as possible per Usenet convention.

[…on principled design and consistency…]

> Well, D fails here.

I think D is at a decent position, and I don't judge a language based on its libraries, so Phobos itself is inconsequential.  When DMD shifts to D it might become an interesting starting point for experimentation as I think a compiler is a task for which the current D language is well suited.

> Note that I don't have an agenda here. I'm not going to use any library primitive for this that uses more than 3 characters anyway and I am not teaching D to anyone.

Ok, so let's drop it.  I am merely supporting the OP's viewpoint that "sequence" is the less suitable name…

On Friday, 24 July 2015 at 08:51:04 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
> Martin has just merged the rename of `TypeTuple` to `AliasSeq` into the stable branch, which will be released soon. If anyone wants to change the name again, please open a PR immediately, this is the last chance.

Slightly non-sequitur question: Does this whole thing mean that tuple literals are never going to be implemented? The DIP I found mentioned most often is from 2013...