In a parallel environment, the thinking is that all computations are performed in "worker" processes, with pid 1, usually being the driver process that does not do any actual computations itself.
processors should probably be changed to processes to maintain consistency. On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Ben Arthur <[email protected]> wrote: > if "procs() Returns a list of all process identifiers." > > and "workers() Returns a list of all worker process identifiers." > > then why do we "rmprocs(pids...) Removes the specified workers." instead > of rmworkers()? particularly since > > julia> rmprocs(1) > WARNING: rmprocs: process 1 not removed > :ok > > similarly, why do we "addprocs() Add processes on remote machines" and not > addworkers()? > > the above terminology seems a bit odd in a language which puts so much > emphasis on expressiveness. > > > note that there is what i believe to be a typo in the current > documentation. these both should refer to *processes* i believe, not > processors. > > "nprocs() Get the number of available processors." > "nworkers() Get the number of available worker processors." > >
