std.uni vs std.unicode and beyond?

[eles]

On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 at 15:02:25 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 08:51:01 -0400, Dmitry Olshansky 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.

Why so much reluctance? I see it rather as adding a new module to 
phobos, that supersedes and deprecates another module, which 
happens to have an undesirable name, too.

If you prefer short names, I would rather go with std.ucode 
instead of std.uni.

Frankly, look at this expansion of phobos on the left of this 
webpage:

std.typecons
std.typetuple
std.uni
std.uri
std.utf
std.uuid

Does that std.uni looks right to you in this context? It is a 
module about unified name identifiers, isn't? Or specific to 
unions, those dear data structures from the old C days?