Renaming std.conv

[Lars T. Kyllingstad]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:09:02 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> 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.)?


TDPL mentions several times that enforce() is in std.contracts.  Doesn't 
that preclude moving it or renaming the module?

-Lars