The new std.process is ready for review

[Andrej Mitrovic]

On 2/24/13, Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure this would happen.  In order for a module to be "renumbered",
>
> it needs to be a complete rewrite from scratch, with no common ancestry.
> If we have anything that goes to 3, something is wrong.  We should not be
> approving new designs if we plan to get rid of them later.

Ah but how can you guarantee we won't ever need a 3rd rewrite? It's
always possible we might need one in the future.

It's also a problem if we have to start remembering version numbers
for each module we import. E.g.:

import std.process2;
import std.xml; // oops, did I mean xml2 maybe?
import std.signals2;

It's going to be annoying using Phobos like that. I was going to
suggest using version flags, but even that could be annoying, although
that feature was practically invented for this kind of problem.