On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 22:32:00 Brad Anderson wrote: > Would the public import people are suggesting not work for > maintaining backward compatibility? > > Also, couldn't you just do import uni = std.unicode to save on > typing in modules that make use of both std.ascii and std.unicode > (that's even less typing than the current requirement to type the > fully qualified name which includes std)?
Of course we can provide a migration path, but you're still talking about breaking code, and I don't think that std.uni is a bad enough name to merit that. If we were starting from scratch or didn't care about breaking code, then I think that std.unicode would make good sense. std.uni is nice and short, but it's overly short. However, we're _not_ starting from scratch and we do care about breaking code - and we're caring about that more and more. So, I don't think that renaming it at this point would be appropriate. - Jonathan M Davis
