std.uni vs std.unicode and beyond?

[Regan Heath]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:25:23 +0100, Steven Schveighoffer  
<schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 21 May 2013 12:05:37 -0400, eles <eles at eles.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 at 15:02:25 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 08:51:01 -0400, Dmitry Olshansky If the existing  
>>> module is std.uni, then let's keep std.uni.
>>>
>>> std.unicode would be better.  But the code breakage is not worth the  
>>> change.
>>>
>>> As far as restructuring, I don't think it's worth the pain either.
>>
>> Why so much reluctance? I see it rather as adding a new module to  
>> phobos, that supersedes and deprecates another module, which happens to  
>> have an undesirable name, too.
>>
>> If you prefer short names, I would rather go with std.ucode instead of  
>> std.uni.
>
> It has nothing to do with the name.  I think unicode is better.  But  
> (allegedly) we have existing projects that use std.uni, which would  
> break if we renamed.

Wouldn't the old std.uni remain but deprecated?

R

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/