The new std.process is ready for review

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 20:07:43 -0500, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>  
wrote:

> On Saturday, February 23, 2013 19:32:48 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> 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.
>
> We might be able to remove std.process eventually and then rename  
> std.process2
> to std.process (leaving std.process2.d to import std.process), but  
> Walter (and
> to some extent Andrei) seems to be very much in favor of leaving stuff  
> around
> permanently. It's likely that std.process will be deprecated (which now
> defaults to warning about it rather than giving an error) and eventually
> undocumented, but actually killing it off may take a bit of doing given
> Walter's attitude about code breakage. He seems to be perfectly fine with
> leaving around old, dead code on the off-chance that some older code is  
> using
> it and would break if it were removed.

I don't see std.date around anymore...

-Steve