On 2013-05-21 14:51, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
The pitch by deadalnix:
I strongly push into renaming it to std.unicode . As said in the other
thread : uni can be unicode, but also unique, union, unit, uniform,
unix, unijambist, whatever.
When theses pile up in a large library, this is more and more difficult
to rely on intuition/autocompletion and much more on programmer's
memory. It mean that it takes longer to learn the whole library.
My reservations:
If the chief benefit of renaming is aesthetics then I'd rather pass.
This kind of knee-jerk changes made on basis of "a good time to try to
push a better name" just don't belong in design of library/package
structure. Yeah, I know nobody is going to say "package structure"
looking at Phobos.
If we make it a part of restructuring std.* that is long overdue then
I'm fine as long as package structure is well thought out as a whole.
Changing it now before adopting a package structure risks the 2nd change
and another set of arguments for keeping things as is.
Let's continue discussion here and not in voting thread.
I vote for changing to std.unicode. We need to stop using these
ridiculous shortenings that gain nothing. Just because C shortens
everything doesn't mean D should.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
