s/type tuple/template pack/g please

[Atash]

On Wednesday, 21 August 2013 at 18:17:03 UTC, David Nadlinger 
wrote:
>  a) To me, the name suggests that a "template pack" would 
> consist of templates. In this regard, I'd prefer "parameter 
> pack", which also seems to catch on in the C++ community for 
> the (almost, but not entirely dis-)similar C++11 construct.

My backpack isn't full of backs, though...

In all seriousness (assuming I'm capable of being serious), I 
don't see wording 'template pack' being problematic, assuming 
that there's really no other way to use them but through 
templates (which AFAIK they can't). The word 'parameter' overlaps 
somewhat in my head with the 'Params' DDoc command, and really 
just seems to be uber general with respect to the word 
parameterization.

If you look at this:

http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/parameter_pack

... there's a qualification of the concept 'parameter pack' on 
the very first line: '*template* parameter pack'. This to me is 
indicative that someone realized that the reader, having little 
other experience with this feature in C++ (else why would they be 
reading the article?) might be initially confused if the first 
phrase they encountered wasn't qualified by the word 'template', 
because that's what the feature was meant to be used in the 
context of.

> [...]
> 
> Personally, I like using "Seq" as the name for the constructor 
> template, as do a few other of the GitHub/NG regulars, so maybe 
> "(parameter/variadic/…) sequence" would be an alternative worth 
> discussing?

I'm just... reaaaalllyyyy uncomfortable with anything of the form 
[name-used-in-other-feature-of-language-that-existed-back-in-C] 
[collection-of-whatever-the-previous-word-was].

> In any case, I'd be fine with almost any color for the bike 
> shed, as long as it is not the current one. ;)
>
> David

Blue!