On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 at 12:51:05 UTC, 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 would say that new module should be called std.unicode. It is
way more clear what it does without looking up in docs. For code
breakage, maybe public import in std.uni + pragma-msg about
deprecation could lower it a bit?
Restructuring Phobos is really good idea but I would say we wait
for DIP15 (or any variant) so we can make transition less
painful. For example std.datetime split could be unnoticeable.
