std.uni vs std.unicode and beyond?

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2013-05-21 14:51, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> The pitch by deadalnix:
>
> I strongly push into renaming it to std.unicode . As said in the other
> thread : uni can be unicode, but also unique, union, unit, uniform,
> unix, unijambist, whatever.
>
> When theses pile up in a large library, this is more and more difficult
> to rely on intuition/autocompletion and much more on programmer's
> memory. It mean that it takes longer to learn the whole library.
>
>
> My reservations:
>
> If the chief benefit of renaming is aesthetics then I'd rather pass.
> This kind of knee-jerk changes made on basis of "a good time to try to
> push a better name" just don't belong in design of library/package
> structure. Yeah, I know nobody is going to say "package structure"
> looking at Phobos.
>
> If we make it a part of restructuring std.* that is long overdue then
> I'm fine as long as package structure is well thought out as a whole.
> Changing it now before adopting a package structure risks the 2nd change
> and another set of arguments for keeping things as is.
>
> Let's continue discussion here and not in voting thread.

I vote for changing to std.unicode. We need to stop using these 
ridiculous shortenings that gain nothing. Just because C shortens 
everything doesn't mean D should.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg