I'm amazed how it can be possible not understand that what came up in the author's mind is not the issue at all, and irrelevant.

According to your reasoning, I can name an alarm program "cock", just as long as what was going through my mind at the time was a rooster crowing in the morning. ("Get woken up by cock!") What anyone else chooses to read into it is their problem?

"cock" is not a very good example. Gash, as slang, is nowhere near as often used as "cock". Gash's meaning as "a long, deep cut" is, by far, the most used meaning. Whereas "cock", nowadays, the slang term is pretty much the only used meaning. Peach, rod, purse, knob, sheath, pocket, meat, etc. All these words have alternate slang meanings as well. Should we stop using their original meanings? Like I said in another comment, language is all about context. I've only ever heard 'gash' used as slang in the U.K. I would imagine a very large chunk of the English speaking population only know the non-slang meaning.

Well, there is Coq, the interactive theorem prover. I quite like the name (and the logo, which is a rooster.)

Legend has it that Gérard Huet, who named Coq, enjoys double entendre and chose the name deliberately, just like he did with the Zipper data structure. So this might not be a great example of something that accidentally has a double meaning.

Apparently some British researchers were working on a theorem prover named Bit, which in French sounds like "bitte" (slang for penis). So the French researchers who worked on Coq cheekily chose a French word with a double-entendre meaning in English.

But all these anecdotes counteract what Wikipedia says, which is that Coq was named for one of its authors, Thierry Coquand, and for his "calculus of constructions" (CoC).

>But all these anecdotes counteract what Wikipedia says, which is that Coq was named for one of its authors, Thierry Coquand, and for his "calculus of constructions" (CoC).

It being named after Coquand is unsourced and even states something that is outright wrong (Coquand is not Coq's "principal author", the best fit would be Huet and Christine Paulin, but even then it was developed by a team, they just lead it. Source: Coq's history page).

Is the author of the project a fluent speaker of English?

Not everyone will be familiar with slangs in various countries.

> I'm amazed how it can be possible not understand that what came up in the author's mind is not the issue at all, and irrelevant.

Oh my, then you better not ever venture into the humanities! At least in musicology they spent the past 3 decades wresting free from the idea that evidence of the author's intentions are the only relevant thing.