std.uni vs std.unicode and beyond?

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 22:32:00 Brad Anderson wrote:
> Would the public import people are suggesting not work for
> maintaining backward compatibility?
> 
> Also, couldn't you just do import uni = std.unicode to save on
> typing in modules that make use of both std.ascii and std.unicode
> (that's even less typing than the current requirement to type the
> fully qualified name which includes std)?

Of course we can provide a migration path, but you're still talking about 
breaking code, and I don't think that std.uni is a bad enough name to merit 
that.

If we were starting from scratch or didn't care about breaking code, then I 
think that std.unicode would make good sense. std.uni is nice and short, but 
it's overly short. However, we're _not_ starting from scratch and we do care 
about breaking code - and we're caring about that more and more. So, I don't 
think that renaming it at this point would be appropriate.

- Jonathan M Davis