On 04/05/2022 17.30, Steve Downey via SG15 wrote:
> If we can figure out a better set of names, or improve consistency, without changing the semantics of modules, the draft could be fixed editorially.

In theory, yes, but names are important and sticky, so I wouldn't
want to apply new names to the Working Draft without CWG and plenary
consent.

The scope here is a large-ish set of related names, likely needing
slightly involved fixes to the existing text. It would be good
if those changes could be presented in a coherent paper for
review.

Jens (co-editor)