std.parallelism is accepted into Phobos

[dsimcha]

== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org)'s article
> The debate about make being inadequate is almost as old as make itself
> :o). Our gnu makefile for Posix isn't in any way difficult or scary,
> although it did take a few iterations to get it right. It has 312 lines
> to control a build of 143KLOC, which is a good ratio. The only
> difficulty David would have to modify that makefile is to find the one
> place where all modules are enumerated, and insert his module's name
> there, so I have no idea why he finds that task daunting. (The Windows
> makefile is crappier and repeats itself a lot of times so that's more
> annoying to deal with.)
> The simple fact is that if someone wants to improve our build system
> they'd have to define it and argue successfully for its superiority. The
> issues I'm seeing as a build-systems-outsider who doesn't pay much
> attention are: (a) there are TONS of them; (b) each has issues that
> prevents it from becoming a new de facto standard; (c) the "best" one
> depends a lot on who you ask.
> Andrei

Yeah, my biggest gripe was that, when I tried to integrate std.parallelism into
Phobos on Windows the first time by just following what was already there, I got
bitten by Bug 4904 (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4904) and
thought it might be a latent std.parallelism bug for a while.  I was, of course,
exaggerating about how bad Make is in my original post, but my general experience
(including misc. Linux software I've tried to compile from source) is that it
never works and when it doesn't it's hard to figure out why.  Ironically, D's
makefiles are some of the most well-behaved ones I've dealt with, but I still run
into all kinds of weird issues, like that Phobos doesn't build at all on ancient
Linux distributions from 2004 that my sysadmin insists on using for some reason.