On Tue, 21 May 2013 19:04:25 +0100, Simen Kjaeraas
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2013-05-21, 16:02, Regan Heath wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 14:20:50 +0100, Dmitry Olshansky
<[email protected]> wrote:
21-May-2013 17:03, Regan Heath пишет:
[snip]
[snip]
[snip]
Meaning if we can make an incremental change for the better
For better how? The endless churn in my opinion is not worth the
incremental change for better. You also would have to argue for every
single change with folks pushing whichever way they feel like to (not
talking about uni). This is a proverbial "design by committee".
Another generalisation. No-one is suggesting we start renaming modules
just because user X wants to. All I suggested is that if we get a
chance to do so at the same time as another breaking change to the same
module, we should - provided the benefit of the rename is clear.
I believe his point was rather that this time around we get std.unicode.
Next module is std.encoding.ascii, and then comes std.text.ebcdic.
I'm all for calling it *.unicode instead of *.uni - that part is only
logical. However, there should be a roadmap as to whether * should be
std, std.encoding, or whatever.
Agreed, we need a goal/structure to work towards. Given that we can make
simple/single changes toward that goal/direction as/when possible. It's
like renovating a house, you do it room by room and never change the
colour scheme/design half way through - or you'd have to go back and re-do
the first rooms.
R
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
