std.uni vs std.unicode and beyond?

[Dmitry Olshansky]

The pitch by deadalnix:

I strongly push into renaming it to std.unicode . As said in the other 
thread : uni can be unicode, but also unique, union, unit, uniform, 
unix, unijambist, whatever.

When theses pile up in a large library, this is more and more difficult 
to rely on intuition/autocompletion and much more on programmer's 
memory. It mean that it takes longer to learn the whole library.


My reservations:

If the chief benefit of renaming is aesthetics then I'd rather pass.
This kind of knee-jerk changes made on basis of "a good time to try to 
push a better name" just don't belong in design of library/package 
structure. Yeah, I know nobody is going to say "package structure" 
looking at Phobos.

If we make it a part of restructuring std.* that is long overdue then 
I'm fine as long as package structure is well thought out as a whole. 
Changing it now before adopting a package structure risks the 2nd change 
and another set of arguments for keeping things as is.

Let's continue discussion here and not in voting thread.

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky