Last call for AliasSeq

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 14:00:29 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 13:26:48 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 12:33:35 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi 
>> wrote:
>>> 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
>>
>> Please reread my post, and then look at your answer again. I 
>> asked for evidence, and you posted your opinion.
>
> Again, that's not "my opinion", these are facts, collected 
> everyday in my working room, and I'm just reporting them.

You wrote "I'm fine with ..." and "Please just proceed with 
something TOTALLY different", and not much else. How is this 
anything more than opinion? It is probably based on facts, but 
where is the evidence for these facts?

>
> The problem lays in the "Tuple" word, and in the "Type" word, 
> so just avoid them completely.

This is already a conclusion you drew from the experiences in 
your company. But we have no way of knowing how well these 
conclusions match reality. I don't understand why it's so 
difficult just to recount a few of your experiences. I already 
gave a few examples how this could look:

http://forum.dlang.org/post/ynqxgjekwcgaiywlnmrk@forum.dlang.org

Then everyone can judge for themselves whether your conclusions 
are justified. Given that deadalnix declared this a "repeatable 
experiment", I don't think this is asking too much.

And really, I'm genuinely interested in that. I don't keep asking 
for it just to annoy everyone. And if you can't share that 
information because it involves business secrets, then please 
just say so.

>
> It is up to you, D developers, to take care of our experiences, 
> as we must teach D, or just ignore them.

We're trying, but you don't share the experiences. You just tell 
us that you want something changed. But that's like going to a 
doctor and asking him to operate on you, instead of telling him 
where you're hurting and giving him the information to decide 
whether you need surgery at all.