Imported From: https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/SI-9872?orig=1
Reporter: @odersky

@soc said:
Last proposal and discussion: https://groups.google.com/d/topic/scala-internals/3pIe7Uxqwyo/discussion

@ijuma said:
Yes, this would be good. One thing to consider is what to do about methods in TraversableOnce that call toStream (e.g. toIterable, toSeq). The latter, in particular, is quite surprising and I have found several instances in production code where people ended up using Stream when calling Iterator.toSeq even though they expected to get a List or Vector (i.e. they wanted to "materialise" the Iterator, but instead got a lazy collection that could potentially be affected by changes in the underlying collection if forcing happened later).

@soc said:
Would have been nice if this had happened for 2.12, as it would take a few years off the table until we can repurpose Stream.

@SethTisue said:
I support the deprecation, and I think LazyList is the right name. It emphasizes the similarity with List (it's a cons list, but with a difference). And "LazyList" isn't short and catchy like "stream", but in the context of the other Scala collections, this is a highly unusual collection type, so flagging the unusualness in the name seems appropriate to me.

Someone proposed "MemoizingList", but I think that in Scala context, "Lazy" already sufficiently communicates that.

We'll probably want to avoid repurposing the name "Stream" at all, since the word is now so heavily overloaded with wildly different meanings, both in the Scala world and in the programming world more generally.

Tongfei Chen (ctongfei) said:
"LazyList" is a good name: it means a delayed-evaluation version of a Cons list ("List"). "Stream" is just too semantically overloaded and ambiguous.