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. - Jonathan M Davis
