std.uni vs std.unicode and beyond?

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 22:07:24 Brad Anderson wrote:
> On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 at 17:31:17 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> More specifically, what I'm wondering is whether or not it's
> considered a breaking change if your code still compiles and
> works exactly as it did before except for perhaps a deprecation
> warning during the build?
> 
> I could be misunderstanding what the proposed public import
> solution would accomplish but it sounded like std.uni could be
> upgraded with Dmitry's improvements while getting a new module
> name that is easier for newcomers to find. It sounded like
> win-win to me.

Code wouldn't break immediately, but everyone would have to change their code 
eventually if we're deprecating std.uni in favor of std.unicode. So, we'd be 
forcing everyone to change their code purely for aesthetics, and we've almost 
entirely stopped doing that at this point. Walter and Andrei in particular are 
very much against renaming things at this point. The ROI on the change is too 
small.

- Jonathan M Davis