proposal(assert): change the entrypoint pattern from "assert/assert-foo" to "assert/foo"

[kt3k]

proposal(assert): change the entrypoint pattern from "assert/assert-foo" to "assert/foo"

[0f-0b]

This change makes imports shorter and less repetitive, but on the other hand it breaks the pattern of every module being named after the symbol it exports, and having two similarly named modules (equal and equals) might cause confusion.

[kt3k]

How about renaming equal to isEqual to avoid the above (possible) confusion?

[kt3k]

A question has been raised in #5176

Should we also do the rename of @std/assert/assertion-error -> @std/assert/error?

[kt3k]

Should we also do the rename of @std/assert/assertion-error -> @std/assert/error?

I personally don't think we should do this rename.

assert/equals and assertEquals have completely the same sound when they are read. So it feels natural to be able to import assertEquals from assert/equals. On the other hand, assert/error and AssertionError are different in sound. So it feels a bit confusing that one can import AssertionError from assert/error.

WDYT?

[iuioiua]

It makes sense that @std/assert/error exports an error class, and it doesn't stick out as much as having a @std/assert/assertion-error, compared to the rest of the package. That's as deep as my reasoning goes, but my opinion isn't too strong.