On Saturday, February 23, 2013 22:08:44 Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 21:30:57 -0500, H. S. Teoh <hst...@quickfur.ath.cx> > > OTOH, if we're going to be reorganizing the Phobos module hierarchy, > > then that may be a good time to get the new std.process into the right > > name, and leave the old one somewhere else (maybe remain as > > std.process if the new one goes somewhere else in the hierarchy). > > What? AFAIK, this is not in the plan. > > If Walter and Andrei are willing to reorganize the whole tree, but have a > problem with renaming std.process to std.oldprocess, I feel that's pretty > inconsistent...
Any reorganization that occurred would involve leaving the old modules around but have them simply importing the new ones. But there are no definitive plans to rearrange any modules at this point. Some folks complain about how flat Phobos' hierarchy is from time to time, and recently, Don started a discussion on possibly rearranging it, but nothing has been decided. While it makes some sense to have a deeper hierarchy for newer stuff where appropriate, I'm not at all convinced it's worth the churn of moving any of the old stuff around (even if the equivalent of aliases are left around for the old modules). But we'll see what happens. I expect that nothing will change though, if nothing else, because there hasn't been a big push to change anything, just a few folks complaining about it from time to time. - Jonathan M Davis
