The new std.process is ready for review

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Saturday, February 23, 2013 18:39:10 H. S. Teoh wrote:
> Alternatively, I would push for renaming the old std.process to
> something like old.process (or something else), which is much less of a
> breakage than deleting it from Phobos outright -- existing code just
> need to have their imports fixed and will continue working, whereas
> deleting the module outright leaves existing code with no recourse but
> to potentially rewrite from scratch. This may be easier to convince
> Walter & Andrei on, than outright killing old deprecated modules.

Possibly, but Walter takes a very dim view on most any code breakage, even if 
it means simply changing a makefile to make your code work again, so I'd be 
very surprised if he thought that moving the current std.process would be 
acceptable. If Andrei could be convinced, then we could probably do it, but I 
wouldn't expect him to agree, and IIRC, he had no problem with the 
std.process2 scheme and might even have suggested it. So, I suspect that your 
only hope of avoiding std.process2 is if you can come up with a better name.

- Jonathan M Davis