core.stdcpp

[Mike via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 06:50:19 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> 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.

...and design takes the backseat to convenience.

>
> 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.

I completely understand and sympathize. This is most unfortunate.