s/TypeTuple/AliasSeq/g?

Marc Schütz via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Wed Oct 21 08:21:12 PDT 2015


On Wednesday, 21 October 2015 at 14:11:21 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 October 2015 at 13:53:48 UTC, Marc Schütz 
> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 21 October 2015 at 04:49:14 UTC, Shriramana 
>> Sharma wrote:
>>> When renaming `isExpressionsTuple`, I would think it more 
>>> appropriate to have "isExpressionSeq" since it's an 
>>> `AliasSeq` containing only expressions and no types.
>>
>> This should not be renamed, because an AliasSeq that consists 
>> only of expressions _is_ a tuple.
>
> Except that it still isn't a tuple even if it only contains 
> expressions.
>
>> We aren't. The only reason we use "AliasSeq" at all instead of 
>> "AliasTuple" was that some people insisted they were not 
>> tuples. This does however not apply to all the other things 
>> that _are_ tuples. Renaming those would only make matters 
>> worse.
>
> _Nothing_ which is an AliasSeq is a tuple. What it contains is 
> irrelevant. The simple fact is that they auto-flatten and are 
> not composable like tuples are. Calling them tuples has 
> consistently created confusion.

I won't repeat the objections against your arguments, as it leads 
to nothing. But this discussion again shows that the renaming of 
TypeTuple to AliasSeq was just done for the sake of it (as 
further witnessed by the way it was done). We shouldn't do more 
of that nonsense as long as there is no consistent concept and 
goal behind it.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list