Jonathan M Davis Wrote: > On Thursday, March 08, 2012 20:42:31 H. S. Teoh wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 07:07:43PM -0500, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > > On Thursday, March 08, 2012 12:10:07 H. S. Teoh wrote: > > > > IMO, making all abbreviations in Phobos consistent would be a big > > > > step forward. > > > > > > You know, people keep saying that the abbreviations are inconsistent, > > > but I don't buy that. _What_ abbreviations are inconsistent? > > > > [...] > > > > My comment was referring specifically to the pull request that adds > > "secs" as an alternative for "seconds". From what Walter said, he seems > > to be against any renaming changes, so any existing inconsistencies that > > we might find seems likely to be rejected as well. > > > > But at the end of the day, this *is* just bikeshedding, so perhaps it's > > not worth spending so much time and energy on. People will get used to > > the quirky names eventually, and life goes on. *shrug* > > I think that most of the major issues with inconsistencies have been fixed. > Sure, there may be a few left, but the longer that they're there, the more > costly it is to fix them. And D is reaching the point where it needs to be > stable. Constantly tweaking the standard library just doesn't cut it. I made > quite a few changes to try and fix inconsistencies (such as function names > which weren't camelcased like they were supposed to be), and that was painful > enough, and engendered plenty of complaints in spite of the fact that there > were quite a few people arguing for fixing the names to make Phobos > consistent. > > I really don't think that Phobos is really any more quirky or inconsistent > than your average standard library. It's not perfect, but it isn't > particularly inconsistent either. We'll continue to make improvement to it > (primarily by adding new stuff), but it's increasingly costly to make > breaking > changes. And, on the whole, it's not like what we have is horrible. The > biggest problems involve whole modules (which are generally older) which need > to be redesigned, and those will happen. But minor stuff like tweaking > function > names doesn't really buy us enough to be worth it anymore. If a function > changes sufficiently to merit a full replacement, then maybe we can change > its > name and phase out the old one (e.g. if we change the functions in std.string > which take patterns to take regexes instead), but changing a name to change a > name just isn't worth it when we're trying to provide a serious offering with > D > and Phobos. We're too far along. > > - Jonathan M Davis
make breaking changes at the same time provide a change list and provide a automatically batch changes the tools of third - party source code. good luck dolive