std.data.json formal review

[Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d]

On 07/30/2015 02:40 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2015-07-30 06:41, Walter Bright wrote:
>
>> I agree with your goal of readability. And if someone wants to write
>> code that emphasizes it's JSON, they can write it as
>> std.data.json.parseStream. (It's not about saving typing, it's about
>> avoiding extra redundant redundancy, I'm a big fan of Strunk & White :-)
>> ) This is not a huge deal for me, but I'm not in favor of establishing a
>> new convention that repeats the module name. It eschews one of the
>> advantages of having module name spaces in the first place, and evokes
>> the old C style naming conventions.
>
> I kind of agree with that, but at the same time, if one always need to
> use the fully qualified name (or an alias) because there's a conflict
> then that's quite annoying.
>

It also fucks up UFCS, and I'm a huge fan of UFCS.

I do agree that D's module system is awesome here and worth taking 
advantage of to avoid C++-style naming conventions, but I still think 
balance is needed. Sometimes, just because we can use a shorter 
potentially-conflicting name doesn't mean we necessarily should.