From: Phil Nash (phil.nash.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-27 08:13:53
Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On 4/27/06, Phil Nash <phil.nash.lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> I have to admit, when I returned to boost after some time away and saw a
>> lot of discussion about the Asio library, I did wonder why boost was
>> getting involved in audio!
>> Of course, once I got around to reading the content of the postings it
>> cleared things up - but even if I suspected that Boost's Asio was not
>> the same as Steinberg's, I didn't realise that it was to do with Asynch
>> (or Synch) IO until I looked into it more closely.
>> It's more for the latter reason that I too would welcome a (slight)
>> change to the name (remotely possible trademark issues aside).
>> From the current suggestions I like async_io, although I see that it
>> could be a problem if a synchronouse version was implemented.
>> I like the ambiguity of the S, which some have exploited to mean: Aynch/
>> Synch IO. Perhaps we could keep the letters, but stress the grouping
>> like this: as_io ?
> Would that avoid "I didn't realise that it was to do with Asynch (or
> Synch) IO until I looked into it more closely."?
Well, not as much as I'd like, but I think it does help. By isolating
the "io" part, it makes it more obvious that those letter belong
together. As for the "as", well on its own (but in the context of io) it
does suggest either ASync or Async/ Sync. It's just when you run them
together that the meanings are less clear (to me).
> Although it does/may provide support for sync operations, the main
> purpose of the library are the async operations AFAIK.