Breaking backwards compatiblity

[Walter Bright]

On 3/11/2012 8:34 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> I do think better name isn't the problem. The problem is about consistency, and
> will persist as long as we don't agree on a guideline on that in phobos.
>
> Changing a name just for changing it doesn't worth the cost, unless the original
> name is horribly misleading - rare case. But getting the naming convention
> consistent is of much greater importance, and justify breaking code.

Frankly, I think naming conventions are overrated. The problem is that, as the 
sec vs seconds debate shows, there is not a correct answer. It becomes a 
bikeshed issue. There are a lot of considerations for a name, usually 
conflicting with each other. To set rules in concrete and follow them no matter 
what is a formula for silly results.

I'm not suggesting no naming convention. Naming conventions are good. But they 
don't trump everything else in importance, not even close.

And sometimes, a name change can be a huge win - the invariant=>immutable one is 
an example. But I think that's an exceptional case, not a rule.