Re: [Async] Naming land grab?

From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-10-02 19:24:44

pon., 2 paź 2023 o 18:30 Niall Douglas via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
napisał(a):

> On 02/10/2023 17:18, Vinnie Falco wrote:
> > 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?
>
> I believe the current count is six reviews, and two sets of detailed
> notes which are most of a review each. More than enough.
>
> All recommend acceptance incidentally. My work will be to condense the
> conditions into a feasible set for Klemens to work upon.
>
> I see no current reason why it won't be an accept, just with conditions.
>

I know that you know it, but let me still reiterate here the rules of the
Boost Review process for the benefit of all the people reading this list.
The review manager makes the decision whether to accept or reject the
library based on their discretion. The recommendations from the reviewers
are only means to help guide this decision. No democracy or averaging of
the reviews is at play.

For instance, I mentioned in the review that I have a superficial knowledge
of the C++ coroutines, and I expect my recommendation to be weighed
accordingly.

Regards,
&rzej;

> It's not too late for a review from you or Richard if you have strong
> feelings that the library ought to be rejected?
>
> >> 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.
>
> Clever GPT.
>
> Niall
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>