Renaming std.conv

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
> 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?

I plan to move it to std.exception in a backward-compatible way (have 
std.conv consist of only one import, then deprecate it).

Andrei