That does seem like a good idea, to properly differentiate "Color Burn" from "Linear Burn".

However, since you are touching that area, isn't there a similar issue with "Dodge"? What kind of dodge? I have a suspicion (haven't actually checked LOL) That "Dodge" should be "Color Dodge" and "Add" is actually "Linear Dodge". Again, I could very well be wrong so needs checking.

From wikipedia

"Color Dodge" blend mode divides the bottom layer by the inverted top layer. This lightens the bottom layer depending on the value of the top layer: the brighter the top layer, the more its color affects the bottom layer. Blending any color with white gives white. Blending with black does not change the image. The operation is not invertible due to possible clipping of highlights. (The clipping happens in the same area as for the Linear Dodge.) When top layer contains a homogeneous color, this effect is equivalent to changing the white point to the inverted color. The perceived contrast increases when there is no clipping.

"Linear Dodge" blend mode simply sums the values in the two layers (also known as additive blending). Blending with white gives white. Blending with black does not change the image. When top layer contains a homogeneous color, this effect is equivalent to changing the output black point to this color, and (input) white point to the inverted color. The contrast is decreased when there is no clipping.

Can you share your suggestions at https://devtalk.blender.org/t/blend-modes-naming-inconsistency/8006

In D5186#117704, @Eitan Traurig (EitanSomething) wrote:

Can you share your suggestions at https://devtalk.blender.org/t/blend-modes-naming-inconsistency/8006

Ah yes - my bad - didn't see that thread.

Typo in your change in rna_sequencer.c at line 1460: "COLIORBURN"

I think you'd want to capitalize the "Burn" in "Color Burn" to match the case of the other options.

And I could be wrong, but think some of the changes in the enum lists (rna_material.c & rna_sequencer.c) could break python scripts. You might need to keep the second field the same as it is now to work with existing scripts. So in the change in rna_sequencer.c, 2794, might have to be:

{SEQ_TYPE_COLORBURN, "BURN", 0, "Color Burn", ""},

I don't really use Python in Blender so I could be wrong about this.

In D5186#117731, @Harley Acheson (harley) wrote:

And I could be wrong, but think some of the changes in the enum lists (rna_material.c & rna_sequencer.c) could break python scripts. You might need to keep the second field the same as it is now to work with existing scripts. So in the change in rna_sequencer.c, 2794, might have to be:

{SEQ_TYPE_COLORBURN, "BURN", 0, "Color Burn", ""},

I don't really use Python in Blender so I could be wrong about this.

In D5186#117731, @Harley Acheson (harley) wrote:

And I could be wrong, but think some of the changes in the enum lists (rna_material.c & rna_sequencer.c) could break python scripts. You might need to keep the second field the same as it is now to work with existing scripts. So in the change in rna_sequencer.c, 2794, might have to be:

{SEQ_TYPE_COLORBURN, "BURN", 0, "Color Burn", ""},

I don't really use Python in Blender so I could be wrong about this.

I have asked in https://blender.chat/channel/blender-coders if it will break the python api and I will proceed as if it doesn't.

Changing from
{SEQ_TYPE_COLORBURN, "BURN", 0, "Color Burn", ""},
To
{SEQ_TYPE_COLORBURN, "COLOR_BURN", 0, "Color Burn", ""},
Is that something that can be done in 2.81?

This change makes sense, but we might as well fix the inconsistencies with all the blending modes at once. So, as @Harley Acheson (harley) suggests, same goes to Color Burn etc.