std.uni vs std.unicode and beyond?

[Simen Kjaeraas]

On 2013-05-21, 16:02, Regan Heath wrote:

> On Tue, 21 May 2013 14:20:50 +0100, Dmitry Olshansky  
> <dmitry.olsh at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 21-May-2013 17:03, Regan Heath пишет:
>> [snip]
> [snip]
[snip]
>>> Meaning if we can make an incremental change for the better
>>
>> For better how? The endless churn in my opinion is not worth the  
>> incremental change for better. You also would have to argue for every  
>> single change with folks pushing whichever way they feel like to (not  
>> talking about uni). This is a proverbial "design by committee".
>
> Another generalisation.  No-one is suggesting we start renaming modules  
> just because user X wants to.  All I suggested is that if we get a  
> chance to do so at the same time as another breaking change to the same  
> module, we should - provided the benefit of the rename is clear.

I believe his point was rather that this time around we get std.unicode.
Next module is std.encoding.ascii, and then comes std.text.ebcdic.

I'm all for calling it *.unicode instead of *.uni - that part is only
logical. However, there should be a roadmap as to whether * should be
std, std.encoding, or whatever.

-- 
Simen