std.uni vs std.unicode and beyond?

[nazriel]

On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 at 16:52:06 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 12:43:01 -0400, Regan Heath 
> <regan at netmail.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:25:23 +0100, Steven Schveighoffer 
>> <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> 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?
>>
>
> Deprecated functions don't compile.  Any code that uses it 
> would have to be modified.
>

They do. Unless you add compiler switch they will compile and 
only spit out an warning.

> Only non-breaking solution would be to keep both.  In the past, 
> it has been suggested to have std.uni simply publicly import 
> std.unicode (or analogous solution to some other module 
> renaming).  You would always retain std.uni in this solution.
>
> -Steve