Re: [Async] Naming land grab?

From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-10-02 16:18:03

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 7:40 AM Niall Douglas via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Seeing as nobody here has raised this concern to date, can I confirm
> everybody here is fine with proposed Boost.Async being called Boost.Async?

I don't like it at all and I agree with the "land grab" concern. I was
hoping this library would be rejected and the naming would be a
non-issue. There were only what, 2 reviews?

> If you are not, please suggest a preferred alternative name.

Certainly, the naming of a library plays a significant role in its
perception and utility. Here are ten alternative names that aim to be
specific and descriptive, while avoiding a "land grab":

Boost.Coroutinify
Boost.Asiotasker
Boost.CoAsio
Boost.Yielder
Boost.AwaitIO
Boost.AsioGen
Boost.FiberAsync
Boost.Eventuals
Boost.TaskifyAsio
Boost.CoroutineX

Choosing a name that resonates with both the functionality and the
ethos of the library can be a delightful challenge. Happy coding!

---
The ChatGPT-4 prompt which produced the above:
A boost library is proposed which is based on Boost.Asio and C++20
coroutines, and calls itself Boost.Async because it provides
generators, tasks, and promises to facilitate coroutine
implementations. A reviewer has raised the concern that the name
Boost.Async constitutes a naming "Land grab" as it is too generic.
Propose 10 other names for this library which are not generic.
Thanks