The new std.process is ready for review

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Saturday, February 23, 2013 22:08:44 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 21:30:57 -0500, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx>
> > OTOH, if we're going to be reorganizing the Phobos module hierarchy,
> > then that may be a good time to get the new std.process into the right
> > name, and leave the old one somewhere else (maybe remain as
> > std.process if the new one goes somewhere else in the hierarchy).
> 
> What? AFAIK, this is not in the plan.
> 
> If Walter and Andrei are willing to reorganize the whole tree, but have a
> problem with renaming std.process to std.oldprocess, I feel that's pretty
> inconsistent...

Any reorganization that occurred would involve leaving the old modules around 
but have them simply importing the new ones. But there are no definitive plans 
to rearrange any modules at this point. Some folks complain about how flat 
Phobos' hierarchy is from time to time, and recently, Don started a discussion 
on possibly rearranging it, but nothing has been decided.

While it makes some sense to have a deeper hierarchy for newer stuff where 
appropriate, I'm not at all convinced it's worth the churn of moving any of 
the old stuff around (even if the equivalent of aliases are left around for the 
old modules). But we'll see what happens. I expect that nothing will change 
though, if nothing else, because there hasn't been a big push to change 
anything, just a few folks complaining about it from time to time.

- Jonathan M Davis