Vision for the D language - stabilizing complexity?

[Max Samukha via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 9 July 2016 at 14:58:55 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
> On Saturday, 9 July 2016 at 06:31:01 UTC, Max Samukha wrote:
>> On Saturday, 9 July 2016 at 04:32:25 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
>>

> This is a tangent from the subject of this thread, but: No, 
> that just says how it is implemented, not what it means / 
> intends. See "the 7 stages of naming", here: 
> http://arlobelshee.com/good-naming-is-a-process-not-a-single-step/
>
> (That resource is talking about identifier naming, not 
> keywords. But it applies anyway.)

You have a point, but the name is still not 'just bonkers', all 
things considered. Metonymy is justified in many cases, and I 
think this is one of them. What better name would you propose?