The new std.process is ready for review

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 19:25:33 -0500, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>  
wrote:

> 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.
>

Yeah, I don't want to get into this discussion again.  There are better  
ways (at least IMO :), but they were not favored.

Once std.process2 is accepted, and in use for a long time, we can probably  
deprecate std.process.  But I don't know if std.process2 would then be  
renamed.  I can't remember what was decided.

-Steve