Re: [boost.async] new name

From: Klemens Morgenstern (klemensdavidmorgenstern_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-10-12 04:02:30

On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 11:48 AM Richard Hodges via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 at 04:51, Klemens Morgenstern via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> > Given the renaming requirement, I'd like to query the list if there
> > are any objections to any of the following names:
> >
>
> Are we confirming acceptance of the names by not answering, or answering in
> the positive?
>

Either is fine, I just need to make sure the names are acceptable at this point.

I am also open to serious ideas.

> >
> > async.core
> > await
> > co_async / cosync
> > co20 / cor20
> >
> >
> FWIW, of these, cosync seems to me to be the most intuitive.
>

That's good.
I fear other people might interpret it as co_... sync, i.e. something
that co_awaits synchronous things.

Maybe spelled co_sync is worse?