Renaming std.conv

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 06/17/2010 04:10 AM, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 07:31:39 -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>> Michel Fortin wrote:
>>> On 2010-06-16 05:15:24 -0400, Walter Bright
>>> <newshound1 at digitalmars.com>  said:
>>>
>>>> The difference is not based on those 3 points, but on what Andrei
>>>> wrote here. Contracts and error checking are completely distinct
>>>> activities and should not be conflated.
>>>
>>> True.
>>>
>>> Yet, enforce is inside std.contracts. If that isn't conflating the two
>>> concepts I wonder what it is. :-)
>>
>> You're right! I think Lars' suggestion is sensible - we should move
>> enforce to object. Better yet we should find a better name for
>> std.contracts. Ideas?
>>
>> Andrei
>
>
> A few suggestions (even though I still think it belongs in object.d), in
> no particular order:
>
> std.enforce
> std.assumptions
> std.constraints
> std.checks
> std.tests
> std.error
> std.errcheck
>
> -Lars

We haven't reached consensus on where to put enforce() and friends. Any 
other ideas? Of the above, I like std.checks.

Better yet, how about defining std.exception that includes a host of 
exception-related functionality (such as defining exceptions that retain 
file and line, perhaps stack traces etc.)?


Andrei