czw., 12 paź 2023 o 02:51 Klemens Morgenstern via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> napisał(a):
Given the renaming requirement, I'd like to query the list if there are any objections to any of the following names:
async.core await co_async / cosync co20 / cor20
While you didn't ask for it, let me offer some thoughts about the naming rather than a yes/no. I understand that your library is a *frontend* for asynchronous computations, rather than a backend. A thing like Boost.ASIO or another executor would be a backend. Is that a correct characterization? If yes, "async.core" sends an opposite message: as if it was a backend. The introductory sentence in GitHub say: This library provides a set of easy to use coroutine primitives & utilities running on top of boost.asio. These will be of interest for applications that perform a lot of IO that want to not block unnecessarily, yet still want to have linear & readable code (i..e. avoid callbacks). One could summarize it even shorter as "a set of awaitables and basic algorithms on them". In this spirit the name "Boost.Awaitables" would reflect this, "await" (as a verb) a bit less so. "co_async" does reflect that it will have something to do with C++ coroutines, but doesn't say what. If you wanted to say "the subset of usages of coroutines that deal with asynchrony", you are losing it. It looks more like "a better version of boost::asio::co_spawn". "cosync" no longer associates with C++ coroutines because of the missing underscore. I read this as "cosine". "co20" is so strange that it could actually do the trick. It would fit into the same category as Boost.Spirit, Boost.Phoenix, Boost.Beast: it's just a cool name, if you want to learn what the library is for go to the documentation. But you might as well go with Boost.Zen. Regards, &rzej;