On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:25:23 +0100, Steven Schveighoffer
<schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 12:05:37 -0400, eles <e...@eles.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 at 15:02:25 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 08:51:01 -0400, Dmitry Olshansky If the existing
module is std.uni, then let's keep std.uni.
std.unicode would be better. But the code breakage is not worth the
change.
As far as restructuring, I don't think it's worth the pain either.
Why so much reluctance? I see it rather as adding a new module to
phobos, that supersedes and deprecates another module, which happens to
have an undesirable name, too.
If you prefer short names, I would rather go with std.ucode instead of
std.uni.
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?
R
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
