Discuss renaming ImmutableArray

[lrytz]

We could call it immutable.ArraySeq (suggested by @szeiger). Reasons:

• We might have a real immutable array in the future using opaque types
• It makes sense to call it a Seq

[SethTisue]

agree

[dwijnand]

We might have a real immutable array in the future using opaque types
It makes sense to call it a Seq

sorry, what's the reason that the current ImmutableArray should be called a Seq that doesn't apply to a real immutable array?

[lrytz]

I think ArraySeq is a good name, it sounds like a Seq backed by an array ("has an array"). ImmutableArray sounds like "is an array", which it would be.

[odersky]

I agree. Let's keep ImmutableArray for the opaque wrapper for Array.

[szeiger]

We had scala.collection.mutable.ArraySeq which has been subsumed by scala.collection.mutable.WrappedArray. We could call it scala.collection.mutable.ArraySeq instead and rename ImmutableArray to scala.collection.immutable.ArraySeq. This would gives us a nice symmetry that shows that they are essentially the same (except for the pretend immutability).

[odersky]

That looks like a good plan of action.