New names - 2.068 roundup

[Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d]

On 06/25/2015 11:06 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/25/2015 12:48 PM, Mathias Lang via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> And he's right. It is really annoying to update to a new version and have
>> perfectly valid and working code breaking because someone had a nice
>> idea.
>> Ideally, we should only ever break code that has a bug in it.
>
> I've also been willing to break code if it involves significant
> performance, usability, or correctness improvements. Renaming, though,
> doesn't provide that.

It might support performance and usability, at least. Usability is 
obvious. For performance, just assume the eager version has a nicer, 
shorter or more memorable name than the lazy version. (which is the case 
now for e.g. join/joiner, split/splitter).

The main issue is that all those name-describing adjectives have no 
precise, agreed upon meaning.