Last call for AliasSeq

[via Digitalmars-d]

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.