Last call for AliasSeq

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 11:52:32 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 11:50:09 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Neither do we know anything about the other alternatives.
>
>> It seems you and deadalnix actually have useful evidence that 
>> can answer these questions, but neither of you posted them. 
>> Please do!
>
> What sort of evidence are you hoping for?

E.g.
"Joe D. Veloper came on IRC last evening and asked whether D 
supports something like TypeTuple that can also contain strings."
=> He was evidently confused by the term "Type" in the name and 
didn't expect that he _can_ use TypeTuple for that purpose. This 
means the problem - at least in his case - was the "Type" part. 
He will profit if we rename it to CompileTimeTuple or something 
similar, but it will not help if we call it TypeSeq.

"X.Y.Z. didn't understand the difference between Tuple and 
TypeTuple".
=> Maybe the "Tuple" part of the name is the problem. We should 
consider a different name.

"N.N. asked whether he can append things to a TypeTuple in a for 
loop."
=> This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept. No 
matter how we change the name, we probably can't help him avoid 
this misunderstanding.