std.uni vs std.unicode and beyond?

[deadalnix]

On Thursday, 23 May 2013 at 08:49:15 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> I tried to fix all of the naming problems in Phobos previously 
> with the idea
> that we'd fix them all and then move on, and I got a large 
> portion of them
> fixed, but I didn't get them all, and I think that it's past 
> the time when it's
> reasonable to do so. There are too many people pushing for 
> stability, and the
> lack of perceived stability is one of D's biggest detractors 
> right now
> (regardless of what our actual level of stability is). Walter 
> and Andrei in
> particular are of the opinion that the ROI on name changes at 
> this point is
> too low for it to be worth it. Sure, aesthetically, it would be 
> nice to fix
> them all, but at some point, we have to just move on and live 
> with what we
> have. Fortunately, _most_ of it has been fixed already, and the 
> biggest
> remaining offenders are modules that should probably be 
> replaced wholesale
> anyway (e.g. std.socket), so they may get fixed if the ROI for 
> replacing such
> modules is high enough (in which case, the fixing of names is a 
> bonus which
> comes along with fixing something which actually _does_ have a 
> ROI for changing
> it).
>

I though more about this. I do think the ROI is very real, but 
the one that gain the benefit are the one that aren't used to the 
module. Which mean that the one that will pay for the change 
won't be the one benefiting from it.

I do think that we have a lot of people to come in the future, 
and so that the change is worth it. Obviously, who's paying is an 
issue, and I'd rather work on making that smooth for who's paying 
than discarding the change altogether.