On Tue, 21 May 2013 13:08:46 -0400, Regan Heath <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:52:10 +0100, Steven Schveighoffer
<[email protected]> 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.
dmd -d
Apparently, they DO compile with only a warning now. This is better than
before.
relying on dmd -d is a bad idea, since it's too blunt (ALL deprecated
features in existence are now enabled without warnings).
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.
Ick no.
With the advent that deprecated features are now warnings instead of
errors, it might be doable, and just remove std.uni after a year or so.
What we need to establish what the cost is to projects that use std.uni
currently. I have no idea, since I don't use it.
Then we can correctly judge whether the name change is worth doing. I
don't know that it is. std.uni is not immediately recognizable as
something else, so it warrants a lookup in the docs. Yes, less obvious,
but not horrifically misnamed. I don't think it's worth the effort to
rename at this point unless it's shown that nearly nobody uses it.
-Steve
