std.uni vs std.unicode and beyond?

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 13:08:46 -0400, Regan Heath <regan at netmail.co.nz>  
wrote:

> On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:52:10 +0100, Steven Schveighoffer  
> <schveiguy at yahoo.com> 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.
>
> dmd -d

Apparently, they DO compile with only a warning now.  This is better than  
before.

relying on dmd -d is a bad idea, since it's too blunt (ALL deprecated  
features in existence are now enabled without warnings).

>> 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.
>
> Ick no.

With the advent that deprecated features are now warnings instead of  
errors, it might be doable, and just remove std.uni after a year or so.

What we need to establish what the cost is to projects that use std.uni  
currently.  I have no idea, since I don't use it.

Then we can correctly judge whether the name change is worth doing.  I  
don't know that it is.  std.uni is not immediately recognizable as  
something else, so it warrants a lookup in the docs.  Yes, less obvious,  
but not horrifically misnamed.  I don't think it's worth the effort to  
rename at this point unless it's shown that nearly nobody uses it.

-Steve