Re: [boost.async] new name

From: Darryl Green (darryl.green_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-10-12 08:35:44

On Thu, 12 Oct 2023, 10:51 am 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:
>
> async.core
> await
> co_async / cosync
> co20 / cor20
>

I've been lurking. I haven't tried the library yet but it looks convenient.
As to land grabs, so many words taken. cosync is ugly and co_async is
uglier. co20 and cor20 answer a question nobody asked? And the questions
that they provoke i.e. is a better cor20 cor20_2 or cor20.1 or cor21 (or
std::cor in some future year?) are equally uneceasary. Just cor is punny to
me but likely to niche.. await is almost ok but only half of what it does.
Maybe boost.responsive is a good name for what it does (and as nobody has a
preconceived formal definition of a responder or a um thing to respond to
its not a grab) and for how the name was arrived at (if it gets any
support!). Half joking at the bikeshed.