On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 07:57:36 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 03:59:54 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
Anyway, it should be pretty clear that all proposed names are
bad for some reasonable choice of "objectivity". If you want
to avoid a bad name, suggest a good one.
I suggest we remove it without replacement.
The original intention from...
https://web.archive.org/web/20120111015958/http://dlang.org/tuple.html
... suggested that the user should declare their own
'Unspeakable'.(what I have been doing).
Unfortunately TypeTuple was made available without proper
template constraints, due to the path of least resistance,
people started using it for everything.
Surely it better, either to not change it at all, or to remove
it rather than adding something most feel is bad?
Template constraints? Why on earth would TypeTuple need template
constraints? Because it was badly named and has Type in its name?
It holds more than types and that's a _good_ thing. TypeTuple is
incredibly useful - especially for unit testing, and forcing you
to declare it yourself is just wasteful. We're definitely going
to have it. It's just a question of what it's going to be called.
And no one has a good name for it. Alias fits the bill far better
than type, since essentially, it's a list of aliases, so we're
definitely going with Alias in the name. It's just a question of
what the second half of its name is, and Seq gives the fewest
wrong preconceptions about what the thing is, which is why it was
picked. It's still a sucky name, but _all_ of the names suck.
Regardless, we're definitely not getting rid of it. That would
make no sense at all.
- Jonathan M Davis
