Should this work?

[Dicebot]

On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 11:26:39 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
> No, you really don't.
>
> If you're writing string code you will intuitively reach for 
> "substring", "contains", etc because you already know these 
> terms and what behaviour to expect from them.  In a generic 
> context, or a range context you will reach for different 
> generic or range type names.

Trusting intuition is not acceptable. I will go and check in docs 
in most case if I have not encountered it before. Check each time 
for every new aliases. I'd hate to have this overhead. Right now 
all I need to do is to stop thinking about strings as strings - 
easy and fast.

>> What could have been awesome is to be able to define such 
>> aliases via DDOC so that IDE's can understand them and list in 
>> auto-completion, while still putting "real" name in source 
>> code. It would have solved discoverability issue without 
>> harming naming consistency.
>
> I think I would dislike this.. not sure.  Do our docs have 
> "synonyms" in function descriptions.. then at least google 
> would find "contains" on the page next to canFind and you would 
> have an answer.

They don't have it right now and I propose to introduce it for 
this very reason.