data/parent field name inconsistency

[Sacha0]

Base array view types, e.g. SubArray and ReshapedArray, refer to the backing array via the parent field. Some LinearAlgebra array view types, e.g. Symmetric and UpperTriangular, refer to the backing array via the data field, while others, e.g. Transpose and Adjoint, use parent. Should these names be consistent? Best!

[Sacha0]

(CC'ing array guru @mbauman for thoughts :).)

[fredrikekre]

I think parent (the function) is implemented for all of those(?), so it would make sense to call the internal field parent. OTOH data is more general, the internal data does not have to be a "parent" array.

[mbauman]

I don't find this inconsistency all that worrisome.

For what it's worth, I also find the parent generic function to be worthless. You really can only call it if you know and depend upon the implementation details of the array at hand, in which case you might as well just use the field itself — however its named.