Rename inner_kind and inner_type.

[cbuttner]

Rename to remove_distinct_kind and remove_distinct.

Are these names good? It might not be obvious they remove distinct recursively.
The alternative contenders would be flatten_kind and flatten, but then it's not entirely obvious what it does either.

[lerno]

I'm thinking "base" might be better - talking about the "base type" of something.

[lerno]

Any thoughts?

[lerno]

In the compiler, removing the distinct-ness is known as flattening, whereas reducing types to their backend representations is known as lowering (and should only be done in the backend), maybe this can be used if it is only distinct?

[cbuttner]

base_type is not bad but it's also not super clear, just from the name alone one might think it returns the underlying type of an enum or optional, or it could resolve subtyped structs with inline to it's "base type".
I think it's a similar problem with flatten or lower.
I personally like remove_distinct for it's clarity but I'm open to whatever.

[lerno]

flatten and lower does have the advantage of being well defined within the compiler.

[lerno]

distinct_of?

[sa-tasche]

distinctof to be consistent.

[lerno]

@sa-tasche That seems to be a bit reverse of what is meant though? It's getting the type the distinct is using as a based.