Jonathan M Davis wrote: > On Friday, October 26, 2012 10:59:17 Jens Mueller wrote: > > > No. The issue is code breakage in the code of people using Phobos, and if > > > you change where the module is, you'll break code. Even if we provide a > > > deprecation path from std.uri to std.net.uri, that still means that > > > people will have to change their code eventually, meaning that you still > > > have code breakage (it's just better controlled). Making the change has > > > to be worth breaking people's code, and making breaking changes to Phobos > > > is becoming less and less acceptable. I don't know whether it is or isn't > > > acceptable in this case. > > > > We should add the cost of fixing to the equation. > > There's definitely some truth to that, but Walter in particular seems to be > against breaking anything period. If it were entirely up to him, pretty much > none of the breaking changes that have happened to Phobos' API over the last > few years would have happened. And Andrei is beginning to oppose most > breaking > changes. So, the bar is getting pretty high for making breaking changes. > Simply renaming stuff generally isn't going to cut it. This is arguably > slightly more than simply renaming std.uri, because it's an issue of module > organization rather than simply what its name is, but it's also arguably so > trivial that the benefit is near zero. > > I doubt that std.uri is a particularly heavily used module, but I have no > idea > how acceptable Walter or Andrei would find it to move it to std.net. In > principle, it would be good, but in practice, I don't know. Whether it can > happen or not probably comes down primarily to whether you can convince > Andrei > or not.
Is it okay to have both modules and only state in std.uri's documentation that you shouldn't use it anymore (similar to std.xml)? This would break no code. Jens
