Uri class and parser

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Friday, October 26, 2012 10:11:04 Jens Mueller wrote:
> Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> > On 2012-10-25 23:06, Jens Mueller wrote:
> > >I'd prefer the second option. Maybe write first some unittests for
> > >std.uri, if there are none. Then move it.
> > 
> > Agree, but we want to minimize the code breakage.
> 
> That's what the unittests are for.
> Code breakage that results in compiler errors (i.e. using deprecate) are
> tolerable, I think. Silently code breakage is problematic.

No. The issue is code breakage in the code of people using Phobos, and if you 
change where the module is, you'll break code. Even if we provide a 
deprecation path from std.uri to std.net.uri, that still means that people 
will have to change their code eventually, meaning that you still have code 
breakage (it's just better controlled). Making the change has to be worth 
breaking people's code, and making breaking changes to Phobos is becoming less 
and less acceptable. I don't know whether it is or isn't acceptable in this 
case.

- Jonathan M Davis