On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 at 16:52:06 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 12:43:01 -0400, Regan Heath
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:25:23 +0100, Steven Schveighoffer
<[email protected]> wrote:
It has nothing to do with the name. I think unicode is
better. But (allegedly) we have existing projects that use
std.uni, which would break if we renamed.
Wouldn't the old std.uni remain but deprecated?
Deprecated functions don't compile. Any code that uses it
would have to be modified.
Only non-breaking solution would be to keep both. In the past,
it has been suggested to have std.uni simply publicly import
std.unicode (or analogous solution to some other module
renaming). You would always retain std.uni in this solution.
-Steve
When `std.regexp` was deprecated, they used a pragma for the
deprecation message:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/blob/2.062/std/regexp.d#L127L128
The same thing could be done for `std.uni`.
If there is a big plan to restructure Phobos then `std.uni` can
be deprecated now, and be removed completely once the big
backward compatibility break is done. If there is no such plan,
the removal of `std.uni` will cause too much redundant breakage
in no-longer-maintained libraries.
