On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 at 08:40:33 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> I'm strongly against this. It makes the module name longer for little gain and
> breaks code. And std.uni is actually one of the modules that you're likely to
> have to spell out completely due to how it overlaps with std.ascii.
>

That is true, but an alias can be easily created.

> Were there even any functions in std.uni which get deprecated as part of this
> change. I don't remember any, but I'd have to check. But either way, changing
> the module name would introduce 100% breakage in the module's usage and for
> little to no gain IMHO.
>

We can still have std.uni for any period of time still available. Right now is the best moment for a change. We don't even need to break something.

On 2013-05-21 10:40, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

> I'm strongly against this. It makes the module name longer for little gain and
> breaks code. And std.uni is actually one of the modules that you're likely to
> have to spell out completely due to how it overlaps with std.ascii.

I would make the opposite argument. Shortening "unicode" to "uni" gains nothing at all.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Tue, 21 May 2013 13:23:07 +0100, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote:

> On 2013-05-21 10:40, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>
>> I'm strongly against this. It makes the module name longer for little gain and
>> breaks code. And std.uni is actually one of the modules that you're likely to
>> have to spell out completely due to how it overlaps with std.ascii.
>
> I would make the opposite argument. Shortening "unicode" to "uni" gains nothing at all.

Agreed.  I was briefly and initially confused as to what std.uni was, had it been called std.unicode it would have been immediately obvious instead.

R

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

21-May-2013 16:33, Regan Heath пишет:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 13:23:07 +0100, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2013-05-21 10:40, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>
>>> I'm strongly against this. It makes the module name longer for little
>>> gain and
>>> breaks code. And std.uni is actually one of the modules that you're
>>> likely to
>>> have to spell out completely due to how it overlaps with std.ascii.
>>
>> I would make the opposite argument. Shortening "unicode" to "uni"
>> gains nothing at all.
>
> Agreed.  I was briefly and initially confused as to what std.uni was,
> had it been called std.unicode it would have been immediately obvious
> instead.
>
> R
>

Created new thread. Let's stop diverging this one.

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky

Yes.

On Sun, 19 May 2013 23:18:12 -0700, Jesse Phillips <Jesse.K.Phillips+D@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is a replacement module for the current std.uni by Dmitry Olshansky. The std.uni module provides an implementation of fundamental Unicode algorithms and data structures.
>
> If you would like to see the proposed std.uni include into Phobos please vote yes. If one condition must be met specify under what condition, otherwise vote no.
>
> In summary, most discussion revolved around the string based functions for toLower/toUpper and where they should live.
>
> Please place any further comments in the official review thread leaving only your vote and a short comment (there should be no need to reply to anyone).
>
> Docs:
> http://blackwhale.github.io/phobos/uni.html
>
> Source:
> https://github.com/blackwhale/phobos/tree/new-std-uni
> Stand Alone: https://github.com/blackwhale/gsoc-bench-2012
>
> Review Thread:
> http://forum.dlang.org/post/xbuphdghoyymjajpfzki@forum.dlang.org
>
> Sunday April 26 PST will be the last day of voting.

Yes.

With a +1 for std.unicode or std.encoding.unicode

-- 
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/

yes

-Steve

Yes

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 08:18:12AM +0200, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> This is a replacement module for the current std.uni by Dmitry Olshansky. The std.uni module provides an implementation of fundamental Unicode algorithms and data structures.
> 
> If you would like to see the proposed std.uni include into Phobos please vote yes. If one condition must be met specify under what condition, otherwise vote no.
[...]

Yes!


T

-- 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
	-- Bertrand Russell.

"How come he didn't put 'I think' at the end of it?"
	-- Anonymous

On Monday, May 20, 2013 08:18:12 Jesse Phillips wrote:
> If you would like to see the proposed std.uni include into Phobos please vote yes. If one condition must be met specify under what condition, otherwise vote no.

Yes.

I wish that I'd managed to review the module more thoroughly before this, but I didn't manage to, and from what I've seen, I suspect that I'd need to study up on Unicode a lot more to give a particularly in depth review of it anyway. On some level, we just have to trust that Dmitry knows what he's doing with this incredibly complicated subject (particularly those of us who don't know it well enough ourselves).

- Jonathan M Davis