eliminate junk from std.string?

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Walter Bright" <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:igifgt$1cuj$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> I agree with this reasoning for having them. However, I don't think it 
>> means we shouldn't D-ify or Phobos-ify them, at least as far as 
>> capitalization conventions.
>
> I also object to rather pointlessly annoying people wanting to move their 
> code from D1 to D2 by renaming everything. Endlessly renaming things 
> searching for the perfect name gives the illusion of progress, whereas 
> time would be better spent on improving the documentation, unittests, 
> performance, etc.
>
> Naming of things isn't nearly as critical an issue in D as it is in, say, 
> C, because of the excellent antihijacking support in D's module system.
>
>
> Some name changes have turned out to be a big win, like "invariant" => 
> "immutable". But I don't think that implies open season for wholesale 
> renaming of swaths of functions.

We're not asking for free-for-all bikeshedding, we're asking to get rid of 
the free-for-all naming-convention-carnival in the std lib. Just basic 
sensible consistency, that's all.

And breaking compatibility with D1 for the sake of progress is the whole 
point of D2.