Clean up generics for a more consistent naming scheme

[regexident]

Currently the project uses an inconsistent naming scheme for generic arguments, which this PR aims to unify:

• K, Key -> Key
• V1, Val1 -> Value1
• V2, Val2 -> Value2
• T1 -> Tuple1
• T2 -> Tuple2

[regexident]

@ecstatic-morse I just rebased the Pr onto master, which should make the diff clearer now.

[ecstatic-morse]

If anything, we'd want to switch to shorter names: going from Val or V to Value doesn't add any additional information, but it does make parameter lists longer. Same thing for Tuple, which should be either T or something like Prefix/Pfx depending on the context IMO.

Obviously, this is all very subjective, but with a compelling reason to rename everything, I don't think we should merge this. I was waiting to see if #34 (which is based on this PR) was that reason, but I think that PR has a fatal flaw.

[regexident]

If anything, we'd want to switch to shorter names: going from Val or V to Value doesn't add any additional information, but it does make parameter lists longer. Same thing for Tuple, which should be either T or something like Prefix/Pfx depending on the context IMO.

I'm not married to the particular naming scheme chosen and would be happy to change it to short names.

Obviously, this is all very subjective, but with a compelling reason to rename everything, I don't think we should merge this.

I'd think that even if arguably cosmetic having a uniform naming scheme makes the project more accessible, no?

I was waiting to see if #34 (which is based on this PR) was that reason, but I think that PR has a fatal flaw.

With #34 dead in the water there's no urgency (on my side) to get this PR merged asap either, so I wouldn't mind waiting for the three currently open PRs to be merged first.

That said feel free to close this, if you don't feel the effort overhead is worth it. No hard feelings.