The new std.process is ready for review

[Nathan M. Swan]

Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> 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
>

Why not just deprecate everything currently in std.process and drop in 
the new stuff? It might be a bit ugly, but it prevents both code 
breakage _and_ a proliferation of "std.module2"s.

My 2 cents,
NMS