RFC: std.*.concept convention

[David Gileadi via Digitalmars-d]

On 2/11/15 12:47 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
> On Wednesday, 11 February 2015 at 08:00:54 UTC, Jakob Ovrum wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> Putting the complexity of the container concept aside; I think we
>> should factor out the concept checkers from std.range.primitives and
>> put them in std.range.concept and establish a convention of using
>> modules named std.*.concept for concept checkers in the future. The
>> consistency gained by such a convention makes type concepts easier to
>> understand and commonly used module names easier to remember. If we do
>> it now, there is no breakage, as the splitting of std.range has not
>> yet been released: hence the otherwise clumsy timing of this suggestion.
>>
>> [snip]
>
> +1. Makes a lot of sense to do it this way.
>
> I prefer "concept" over "trait". I think of traits as more primitive
> building blocks. With a trait you are querying information about a type.
> With a concept you are fitting a type to its requirements.

My uneducated feeling is that if there's a clear dividing line as to 
what is a trait and what is a concept—for instance if they have 
different syntax—then it makes sense to have two names. Otherwise I 
think it makes more sense to have just one. Fuzzy categorization tends 
to hurt.