Andreas Rumpf

But then if I **actually use** the non-ugly `import std / json` I'm aiming for a moving target. And readers of my code three years from now are not aware...

> Such naming will make it impossible to phase out older json modules. Let's say json and json2 get deleted.. then it will be confusing to see just json3 hanging...

> New users/programs don't have to think about what the latest version of a stdlib package is, simply import json would get you the current JSON module. Nobody really has...

> You would have the minimum or exact nim version dep in .nimble. And why exactly is this preferable? Meta information that is not part of your program directly is...

> In my opinion the json2/std2/json syntax is extremely ugly and would put me off using Nim if I saw that as one of the first things when I encountered...

Well ... it's still a "standard library", yes, it accumulates cruft, that's simply the nature of the beast. No, this doesn't mean a random collection of modules with trailing digits...

> It won't be a collection of "standard" libraries, but just a collection of all versions of modules. E.g. re and nre. We can embrace `regex` instead and deprecate and...

Python had urllib2 and it survived, https://docs.python.org/2.7/library/urllib2.html

> You misunderstood me. I don't think so and the 'you' in my reply was a general 'you', don't take it personally. Just imagine we would have done that: Added...

I continue to fail to see the benefit in "instead of a stdlib, here is a list of Nimble packages". Not reviewed, using different styles and of different code qualities...