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.

On 20/05/2013 07:18, 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.

I vote YES!

A...

On Monday, 20 May 2013 at 06:18:15 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> Sunday April 26 PST will be the last day of voting.

2014?

vote: yes

On Monday, 20 May 2013 at 06:18:15 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> Sunday April 26 PST will be the last day of voting.

Err, May 26.

Yes.

On Monday, 20 May 2013 at 06:18:15 UTC, 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.
>

I strongly push into renaming it to std.unicode . As said in the other thread : uni can be unicode, but also unique, union, unit, uniform, unix,
unijambist, whatever.

When theses pile up in a large library, this is more and more difficult to rely on intuition/autocompletion and much more on programmer's memory. It mean that it takes longer to learn the whole library.

Overall, the module is good I think and my vote is yes.

On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 at 01:37:59 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Monday, 20 May 2013 at 06:18:15 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:

> I strongly push into renaming it to std.unicode.

I second that. I understand that is unpleasant, but better to make the effort now than later.

Transition should be, also, smoother: old code will continue to work with current std.uni module, that will be marked as deprecated, while new code will use the proposed module, named std.unicode.

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:31:56 eles wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 at 01:37:59 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> > On Monday, 20 May 2013 at 06:18:15 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> > 
> > I strongly push into renaming it to std.unicode.
> 
> I second that. I understand that is unpleasant, but better to make the effort now than later.

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.

> Transition should be, also, smoother: old code will continue to work with current std.uni module, that will be marked as deprecated, while new code will use the proposed module, named std.unicode.

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.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Monday, 20 May 2013 at 06:18:15 UTC, 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, please.

Thank you Dmitry for your excellent work.

Yes.

And I also vote for renaming to std.unicode; now would be the best time to rename. This could be done with compiler's or a tool that uses the compiler, at the very least a friendly error message.