Uri class and parser

[Jens Mueller]

Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Friday, October 26, 2012 10:59:17 Jens Mueller wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > We should add the cost of fixing to the equation.
> 
> There's definitely some truth to that, but Walter in particular seems to be 
> against breaking anything period. If it were entirely up to him, pretty much 
> none of the breaking changes that have happened to Phobos' API over the last 
> few years would have happened. And Andrei is beginning to oppose most breaking 
> changes. So, the bar is getting pretty high for making breaking changes. 
> Simply renaming stuff generally isn't going to cut it. This is arguably 
> slightly more than simply renaming std.uri, because it's an issue of module 
> organization rather than simply what its name is, but it's also arguably so 
> trivial that the benefit is near zero.
> 
> I doubt that std.uri is a particularly heavily used module, but I have no idea 
> how acceptable Walter or Andrei would find it to move it to std.net. In 
> principle, it would be good, but in practice, I don't know. Whether it can 
> happen or not probably comes down primarily to whether you can convince Andrei 
> or not.

Is it okay to have both modules and only state in std.uri's
documentation that you shouldn't use it anymore (similar to std.xml)?
This would break no code.

Jens