Why not std.io instead of std.stdio?

[dsimcha]

== Quote from Denis Koroskin (2korden at gmail.com)'s article
> Michel Fortin Wrote:
> > While it seems acceptable to use "stdio" in "std.c.stdio", since we're
> > wrapping the C header of the same name, I see little justification in
> > repeating the "std" in the module name for "std.stdio". Why not change
> > it to "std.io"?
> >
> > (same comment apply to other "std.std*" modules)
> >
> > I first noticed the strangeness of this when I was new to D, but today
> > I mistakenly wrote "import std.io;", which felt more natural, is
> > shorter and reads way better than "import std.stdio;", which triggered
> > the question.
> >
> > --
> > Michel Fortin
> > michel.fortin at michelf.com
> > http://michelf.com/
> >
> Nice question!
> I also quite don't understand why Phobos doesn't take advantage of hierarchical
modules structure. For example, I/O is a large cathegory and a lot of elements
belongs to it. Console I/O is just one of example, but there is also network I/O,
DMA etc. I believe it is much better to put each independent element in its own
module (to reduce intermodular dependencies etc). For example, I put each class in
a separate module.
> I believe it makes analyzing source code *a lot* easier.

Because then you have yet more stuff to remember to import.  Stuff that goes
together and is generally used at the same time shoudl be in the same module.