On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 at 15:02:25 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 08:51:01 -0400, Dmitry Olshansky If the
existing module is std.uni, then let's keep std.uni.
std.unicode would be better. But the code breakage is not
worth the change.
As far as restructuring, I don't think it's worth the pain
either.
Why so much reluctance? I see it rather as adding a new module to
phobos, that supersedes and deprecates another module, which
happens to have an undesirable name, too.
If you prefer short names, I would rather go with std.ucode
instead of std.uni.
Frankly, look at this expansion of phobos on the left of this
webpage:
std.typecons
std.typetuple
std.uni
std.uri
std.utf
std.uuid
Does that std.uni looks right to you in this context? It is a
module about unified name identifiers, isn't? Or specific to
unions, those dear data structures from the old C days?
