Re: [Async] Naming land grab?

From: Christian Mazakas (christian.mazakas_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-10-03 14:13:36

I emphatically support the name ACE or just Ace for this library as:
Asio Coroutine Extensions.

This perfectly describes the library and is a nice short name that's
unique and pops.

One thing I don't understand, the authors insists that Asio is just
here for its event loop and cancellation but if you look at the docs,
like 80% of Ace's interface contains `boost::asio::` in it. I also
wanted to mention that I think I saw a signature that accepted
`io_context::executor` when it should just be `asio::any_executor`.

This seems to be based on the notion that Asio's executors will
someday make it into the standard but that ship has already sailed and
no matter what we think, Sender/Receiver are most likely going to be
the future of execution in standard C++.

I think, in general, Ace should attempt to hide as much of Asio as it
physically can. Right now, this library exists in an odd middleground.

It's too entrenched in Asio for non-Asio users to really use and if
you are an Asio user, Chris is already implementing like 90% of the
proposed functionality here in its experimental namespace.

- Christian