Tracks is a bad name

[KronosTheLate]

After writing up #275, I am left with a strong feeling that the internal struct Tracks has a bad name. Why on earth would a type have a name with the plural form? If I construct a Tracks, in my mind, I have a single track, trace, or tracker. So I would much prefer Track, Trace, or Tracker to be the name of the type.

The way things currently are, things are not humanly readable in a meaningful way, but have to be memorized.

Any potential change would have to be made also for the tracks kwargument.

[jverzani]

It comes from animal tracks (with the plural). I'm not wed to the name, or the plural, but I'd hate to change it now only because of it being modestly breaking.

[KronosTheLate]

I know... Would it be possible to define one of the suggest names as const Suggested_name = Tracks for forwards compatibility, and make this change for some breaking upcoming release?

[jverzani]

Sure, but let's come up with a good name. It really about recording a log and tracks just seemed okay in the moment. Maybe there is some more widely used naming scheme.

[KronosTheLate]

Could building on existing infrastructure be nice? I am thinking of ValueHistories specifically.

[jverzani]

It isn't out of the question, but I'd like not to have to pull in new dependencies if possible. It might be better to mirror the API. I have a PR that incorporates some stuff we were just discussing. Adding better method names (e.g. not log_step and log_steps might be good.)