On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 08:54:34 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
> On Monday, 27 July 2015 at 22:52:11 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>> On Monday, 27 July 2015 at 09:01:33 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
>>> On Monday, 27 July 2015 at 02:14:57 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>>> AliasTuple in particular has serious issues with it from the perspective of teaching people what it is an how to use it, because it has Tuple in its name,
>>>
>>> People keep claiming that, but have never posted any evidence. We know that _TypeTuple_ had issues, but for all we know, the problem was the "Type" part, not the "Tuple" part.
>>>
>>
>> We have various reports that are consistent and confirm this is an issue. At this point, this is a repeatable experiment, not an anecdote anymore. Ignoring repeatable experiment puts you in the tinfoil hat section of the population. You don't want to be there.
>
> Well, your post kind of proves my point. You've stated this several times, and you mentioned that people had problems, but as evidence you only mentioned some obscure irc communications that - for all I know - no one except you has ever seen. Now, I could simply believe you there (after all you're a competent person), but... that's not very scientific at all. If you say that these are repeatable experiments, with a representative sample of the programming community (or even just beginners), with consistent outcomes, then I prefer to see evidence for these claims before I believe them. I'm therefore not ignoring experiments, I have doubts about the validity of said experiments.

That's nonsense.

Being a company that regularly teaches D to newcomers, I can confirm that in the real world it's a mess to teach TypeTuple.

And IMHO that is the common experience of everyone that has to deal regularly with someone that he's learning D in the development department.

Dicebot, feel free to correct me, but I think that this is also what you are experiencing day by day in Berlin...

So, literally, what we are talking about? That's a fact, not a speculation, and a fact that's costing to my company.

--
Paolo

On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 07:23:07 UTC, Sean Campbell wrote:
> 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.
>
> Personally I like Arity.
>
> But if we are going with AliasSeq can we at least use the full word AliasSequence.
>
> IMOA:
> AliasSeq on it's own seems an obscure word to describe what it is

+10086

WTF does 'Seq' means?
AliasSequence is much better!

On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 10:16:21 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 08:54:34 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
>> On Monday, 27 July 2015 at 22:52:11 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>>> On Monday, 27 July 2015 at 09:01:33 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
>>>> On Monday, 27 July 2015 at 02:14:57 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>>>> AliasTuple in particular has serious issues with it from the perspective of teaching people what it is an how to use it, because it has Tuple in its name,
>>>>
>>>> People keep claiming that, but have never posted any evidence. We know that _TypeTuple_ had issues, but for all we know, the problem was the "Type" part, not the "Tuple" part.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We have various reports that are consistent and confirm this is an issue. At this point, this is a repeatable experiment, not an anecdote anymore. Ignoring repeatable experiment puts you in the tinfoil hat section of the population. You don't want to be there.
>>
>> Well, your post kind of proves my point. You've stated this several times, and you mentioned that people had problems, but as evidence you only mentioned some obscure irc communications that - for all I know - no one except you has ever seen. Now, I could simply believe you there (after all you're a competent person), but... that's not very scientific at all. If you say that these are repeatable experiments, with a representative sample of the programming community (or even just beginners), with consistent outcomes, then I prefer to see evidence for these claims before I believe them. I'm therefore not ignoring experiments, I have doubts about the validity of said experiments.
>
> That's nonsense.
>
> Being a company that regularly teaches D to newcomers, I can confirm that in the real world it's a mess to teach TypeTuple.
>
> And IMHO that is the common experience of everyone that has to deal regularly with someone that he's learning D in the development department.
>
> Dicebot, feel free to correct me, but I think that this is also what you are experiencing day by day in Berlin...
>
> So, literally, what we are talking about? That's a fact, not a speculation, and a fact that's costing to my company.

Sorry, but this is unhelpful. All you are saying here is that "TypeTuple" is bad. Yes, but we already know that. Everyone agrees on that.

The real question is: _What exactly_ is the problem with TypeTuple? The "Type" part of the name? The "Tuple" part? The combination? Maybe it's not the name at all, but the concept, or only some part of its behaviour?

Nothing in your post gives us a clue which kind of name would be better. In particular, it doesn't show that `AliasSeq` is any better than `TypeTuple`. So we're changing it from a bad name to one that could be even worse, for all we know.

It seems you and deadalnix actually have useful evidence that can answer these questions, but neither of you posted them. Please do!

On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 11:50:09 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
> Nothing in your post gives us a clue which kind of name would be better. In particular, it doesn't show that `AliasSeq` is any better than `TypeTuple`. So we're changing it from a bad name to one that could be even worse, for all we know.

Neither do we know anything about the other alternatives.

> It seems you and deadalnix actually have useful evidence that can answer these questions, but neither of you posted them. Please do!

What sort of evidence are you hoping for?

 — David

On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 11:23:07 UTC, Elvis Zhou wrote:
> WTF does 'Seq' means?
> AliasSequence is much better!

Seq is a function that maps natural numbers to values in the set X.

«A finite sequence is a finite indexed set of values of the same type, whose domain is a contiguous set of positive integers starting at 1.»

In Z-notation:

«seq X is the set of all finite sequences of values of X , that is, of finite functions from the set 1 . . n, for some n, to elements of X .»

«seq1 X is the set of all non-empty finite sequences of values of X .»

«iseq X is the set of injective finite sequences over X : these are precisely the
finite sequences over X which contain no repetitions.»

On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 11:50:09 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
> Sorry, but this is unhelpful. All you are saying here is that "TypeTuple" is bad. Yes, but we already know that. Everyone agrees on that.
>
> The real question is: _What exactly_ is the problem with TypeTuple? The "Type" part of the name? The "Tuple" part? The combination? Maybe it's not the name at all, but the concept, or only some part of its behaviour?
>
> Nothing in your post gives us a clue which kind of name would be better. In particular, it doesn't show that `AliasSeq` is any better than `TypeTuple`. So we're changing it from a bad name to one that could be even worse, for all we know.
>
> It seems you and deadalnix actually have useful evidence that can answer these questions, but neither of you posted them. Please do!

Honestly when I first was learning D, the Type part of TypeTuple was the part messed me up. I had a rough idea what a tuple was though never need to use one, so the Tuple part seemed to make sense to me, but the Type part always confused the crap out of me.

On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 11:52:32 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
> What sort of evidence are you hoping for?

Consistency???

On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 11:52:32 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 11:50:09 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
>> Nothing in your post gives us a clue which kind of name would be better. In particular, it doesn't show that `AliasSeq` is any better than `TypeTuple`. So we're changing it from a bad name to one that could be even worse, for all we know.
>
> Neither do we know anything about the other alternatives.
>
>> It seems you and deadalnix actually have useful evidence that can answer these questions, but neither of you posted them. Please do!
>
> What sort of evidence are you hoping for?
>
>  — David

We know which is most popular :)

So far the only concrete "evidence" that any one has is the poll. Every thing else is just speculation and anecdotes. No one else has bothered to collect any other evidence.

On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 11:52:32 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 11:50:09 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
>> Nothing in your post gives us a clue which kind of name would be better. In particular, it doesn't show that `AliasSeq` is any better than `TypeTuple`. So we're changing it from a bad name to one that could be even worse, for all we know.
>
> Neither do we know anything about the other alternatives.
>
>> It seems you and deadalnix actually have useful evidence that can answer these questions, but neither of you posted them. Please do!
>
> What sort of evidence are you hoping for?

E.g.
"Joe D. Veloper came on IRC last evening and asked whether D supports something like TypeTuple that can also contain strings."
=> He was evidently confused by the term "Type" in the name and didn't expect that he _can_ use TypeTuple for that purpose. This means the problem - at least in his case - was the "Type" part. He will profit if we rename it to CompileTimeTuple or something similar, but it will not help if we call it TypeSeq.

"X.Y.Z. didn't understand the difference between Tuple and TypeTuple".
=> Maybe the "Tuple" part of the name is the problem. We should consider a different name.

"N.N. asked whether he can append things to a TypeTuple in a for loop."
=> This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept. No matter how we change the name, we probably can't help him avoid this misunderstanding.

On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 11:50:09 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 10:16:21 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>> [...]
>
> Sorry, but this is unhelpful. All you are saying here is that "TypeTuple" is bad. Yes, but we already know that. Everyone agrees on that.
>
> The real question is: _What exactly_ is the problem with TypeTuple? The "Type" part of the name? The "Tuple" part? The combination? Maybe it's not the name at all, but the concept, or only some part of its behaviour?
>
> Nothing in your post gives us a clue which kind of name would be better. In particular, it doesn't show that `AliasSeq` is any better than `TypeTuple`. So we're changing it from a bad name to one that could be even worse, for all we know.
>
> It seems you and deadalnix actually have useful evidence that can answer these questions, but neither of you posted them. Please do!

As already posted in the bike-shedding thread, I'm fine with 'Aliases'.
Or AliasSeq.
Or everything that does not have the 'tuple' or 'type' part in it.
I'm so desperate I would be fine with 'Arguments'!

Please just proceed with something TOTALLY different for this concept

---
Paolo