The new std.process is ready for review

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 21:30:57 -0500, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx>  
wrote:

> I really do not like the name "std.process2". It is exactly the kind of
> thing that will cause newbies to avoid it and go back to the old badly
> designed std.process, and then come back to complain about it, then when
> told to use std.process2, they will wonder "why the 2?". It's just ugly.

Well, we can make importing std.process uncomfortable (read: print a  
warning whenever you include it), and it won't be in the docs.

If anything, I would think a newbie would just wonder why the 2.  And then  
use it :)

I'm not saying I think it's the best situation, but I'm not in charge  
here...

> OTOH, if we're going to be reorganizing the Phobos module hierarchy,
> then that may be a good time to get the new std.process into the right
> name, and leave the old one somewhere else (maybe remain as
> std.process if the new one goes somewhere else in the hierarchy).

What? AFAIK, this is not in the plan.

If Walter and Andrei are willing to reorganize the whole tree, but have a  
problem with renaming std.process to std.oldprocess, I feel that's pretty  
inconsistent...

-Steve