Path as an object in std.path

[Walter Bright]

On 6/6/2013 10:50 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> Some modules have needed been redone. Some still do. But we already _did_
> rework std.path. We agreed that we liked the new API, and it's been working
> great. It's one thing to revisit an API that's been around since before we had
> ranges or a review process. It's an entirely different thing to be constantly
> reworking entire modules. I think that we need _very_ strong justification to
> redesign a module that we already put through the review process. And I really
> don't think that we have it here.

I think we're in violent agreement.

An example of a strong justification for a redo is, for example, conversion to 
use ranges. std.zip needs that treatment.