Arbitrary abbreviations in phobos considered ridiculous

[Bill]

F i L Wrote:

> I personally find it much easier to remember and use longer, more 
> sentance-like method names. However, Jonathan and others 
> obviously feel more comfortable writing with a high level of 
> abbreviation, which they justify rather well. Still, if D's goal 
> is to gain popularity, I think it should take notices of other 
> rising languages like C#.
> 
> The problem with making any change to Phobos is backwards 
> compatibility. So, what if there was a way to satisfy both 
> parties and keep backwards compatibility? Is there any compelling 
> reason why simply wrapping Phobos into a different format would 
> be such bad thing? Meaning:
> 
>      // system.io
> 
>      private import std.stdio;
> 
>      alias write   Write;
>      alias writeln WriteLine;
>      // etc...
> 
> Besides keeping things in-sync and error messages referring to 
> the original function names (which could be amended), I don't see 
> why such a library couldn't be written as a way to make the 
> language easier to swallow to potential D users coming from 
> Java/C#. Microsoft used similar tactics with J#/F# to help the 
> Java/Python folks adapt their code to .NET.

good idea ! can refer to the java c # naming specification, to work out d own naming specification

good luck£¡
Bill