On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 20:07:43 -0500, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com>
wrote:
On Saturday, February 23, 2013 19:32:48 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
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.
We might be able to remove std.process eventually and then rename
std.process2
to std.process (leaving std.process2.d to import std.process), but
Walter (and
to some extent Andrei) seems to be very much in favor of leaving stuff
around
permanently. It's likely that std.process will be deprecated (which now
defaults to warning about it rather than giving an error) and eventually
undocumented, but actually killing it off may take a bit of doing given
Walter's attitude about code breakage. He seems to be perfectly fine with
leaving around old, dead code on the off-chance that some older code is
using
it and would break if it were removed.
I don't see std.date around anymore...
-Steve
