The new std.process is ready for review

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Saturday, February 23, 2013 16:09:43 H. S. Teoh wrote:
> BTW, is "std.process2" just the temporary name, or are we seriously
> going to put in a "std.process2" into Phobos? I'm hoping the former, as
> the latter is unforgivably ugly.

In previous discussions, it was agreed that future replacement modules would 
simply have a number appended to them like that (e.g. std.xml2 or 
std.random2). I don't think that that decision is irreversible, but unless 
someone can come up with a much better name, I'd expect it to stick, and it 
has the advantage of making it very clear that it's replacing the old one.

- Jonathan M Davis