On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 19:25:33 -0500, Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]>
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
