core.stdcpp

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 8/26/2014 5:32 PM, Mike wrote:
> We currently have std.c and core.stdc.  I believe core.stdc should be
> migrated to std.c, not the other way around.  And before we make the same
> mistake with core.stdcpp, we should set a new precedent with std.cpp instead.

The irony is D1 has std.c, and for D2 it was migrated to core.stdc.

Moving it back in an endless search for taxonomical perfection just jerks the 
users around. We've done a lot of renaming in the runtime library, and an awful 
lot of ink has been spilled on the subject in these forums.

But I'm not aware of a single user gained by these changes, and I suspect we've 
lost a few, not because they didn't like the newer names, but because they 
disliked the constant disruption of their code base.