The new std.process is ready for review

[H. S. Teoh]

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 06:32:59PM +0100, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 March 2013 at 16:37:38 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:08:00PM +0100, Vladimir Panteleev
> >wrote:
> >>Since (IIRC) all issues regarding incompatibility with std.process
> >>have been resolved, how about renaming the module to std.process?
> >>This way it'll also be easier to test backwards-compatibility in
> >>existing programs.
> >
> >+1. I hate std.process2 with a passion. Let's keep it as
> >std.process.
> 
> The main reason I created a separate std.process2 was in fact not
> that I intended to keep it that way, but because I kept getting
> merge conflicts whenever I merged in Phobos master.
> 
> If you all don't mind, I'd like to keep it separate until we are
> satisfied that the API is stable.
[...]

That's fine, as long as it's renamed to std.process once it's merged.


T

-- 
People say I'm indecisive, but I'm not sure about that. -- YHL, CONLANG