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.
I'm not drawing inspiration from anywhere. I'm talking about how the term "sequence"/"seq" is commonly used both in CS literature and elsewhere: a list of related values.
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.
If "sequence" is to be understood as a compile time list of random shit with a flattening constructor and auto expansion, then you prevent sensible and consistent use of the term in other contexts.
