The new std.process is ready for review

[Lars T. Kyllingstad]

On Sunday, 24 February 2013 at 00:11:42 UTC, 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.

I agree, it's not ideal, but "unforgivably ugly" is taking it a 
bit far. :)

Anyway, to be honest, I named it std.process2 because I got tired 
of merge conflicts whenever someone made changes in Phobos master 
that either directly or indirectly involved the current 
std.process.

Whether it should finally be named std.process or std.process2 is 
open for debate, IMO, but I have to admit that I am to an 
increasing degree starting to understand Walter's point of view 
on these matters...

Lars