As quoted in the proposal text, @Michael_Ilseman wrote a detailed explanation distinguishing between equality of sequences and equality of sequence elements. The method we are discussing here has to do with the latter. The names sequentiallyEquals or sequenceEquals erase the word "elements" and, in so doing, erase the distinction from the name; in fact, it is hard to imagine a name more similar to Sequence.== than sequenceEquals.
Swift's naming guidelines promote clarity at the point of the use; the name can be shorter if that improves clarity, or it can be longer if that improves clarity. For example, we have FloatingPoint.isTotallyOrdered(belowOrEqualTo:). In this case, we have empiric evidence that elementsEqual is insufficiently clear in real-world use; the revised proposal here entirely abandons my initially pitched name and instead addresses each of the demands that surfaced during the pitch phase:
-
It states that the method evaluates equality of the sequences' elements and not of sequences (by preserving the words "elements equal"--note the verb agreement with the plural noun).
-
It clearly states that the method is order-dependent (by explicitly using the word "order").
-
It clearly states in what order the comparison is made in a way that cannot be interpreted as first sorting and then comparing (by using the phrase "in iteration order").
All of these points were raised by the community during the pitch phase and the resulting proposal reflects the result of that process.