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
