'exp' vs 'std'? Forked: Vote for std.process

[Timothee Cour]

> Also someone might want to use both modules (e.g. to use some kind of
> a transition process). That technique would make this impossible.

If you call it another module name (say exp.process), then:

A) you would not be able to test how the rest of phobos interacts with
the new std.process unless you also temporarily changed the source
files in phobos to include exp.process instead of std.process (messy).

B) That could also lead to duplicate extern(C) symbols being defined
in both modules.

C) you would end up with the same situation that led to javax
described above by others: significant amounts of code may start
importing exp.process to the point where it's too late to change it
back to std.process.

----
In what I proposed, the source never needs to change, only compile
flags to specify order of imports.

But to answer your concern, if you really want to temporarily import 2
versions of process.d to coexist and be co-importable, you can simply
mixin-string-import
experimental/std/experimental_std_process_version_3.d from a
differently named module (say, std.process2), see my point B in
proposal, although that shouldn't be the common use case.

note: I just forgot to mention in the proposal that the 'module
std.process;' declaration should be commented out from the
implementation file
experimental/std/experimental_std_process_version_3.d (which makes
this module swapping possible).