On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 at 15:29:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 7/15/15 9:47 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 7/15/15 9:28 AM, Deadalnix wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 at 08:29:40 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 at 08:13:20 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi
wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 at 07:50:46 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Good to see another bad name merged in master ^_^
Yep, same feeling here....
At this point, I think that it's simply a question of which
bad name
we go with. None of them are particularly good, and there's
a lot of
disagreement about almost all of them - and if there's a lot
of
agreement, it's about how bad the name is, not how good it
is.
I'd be very surprised to ever get real agreement on this.
There simply
isn't a good name for it. And if Walter and Andrei like
AliasTuple,
it's probably going to stick (and Andrei does seem to like
it; no idea
about Walter).
- Jonathan M Davis
Tuple is the only name where we have actual, factual
feedback. Hanging
in the d irc chan for years, it is apparent that calling this
tuple
confuse people. That is a fact.
It doesn't confuse me. We have type tuples and expression
tuples defined
in the spec. An alias tuple can have both expressions and
types. It's
not that confusing. What was confusing is that a TypeTuple was
not a
type tuple as defined in the spec.
I agree.
Andrei
It is not about you guys. Yes this as defined in the spec, for
the most part. Still people weere confused about it. That is a
hard fact.
At this point, the specalso say what typetuple is, and, once
you've gone through it, you understand what it is. Yet, we
decided to change it because everyone was confused.
There are expectation that come with names.
