std.uni vs std.unicode and beyond?

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 08:51:01 -0400, Dmitry Olshansky  
<dmitry.olsh at gmail.com> 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.

If the existing module is std.uni, then let's keep std.uni.

std.unicode would be better.  But the code breakage is not worth the  
change.

As far as restructuring, I don't think it's worth the pain either.

-Steve