std.uni vs std.unicode and beyond?

[Brad Anderson]

On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 at 12:51:05 UTC, 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 to rename it. It's hard to find for people new to phobos 
under the name "uni" (anecdotally, it took me awhile to find it 
when I was starting out and occasionally someone hops in IRC and 
asks about unicode and you typically have to point out to them 
that the unicode module is std.uni)  I've never seen unicode 
called "uni" outside of std.uni.