Well, I'm for the library. I haven't done much with concurrent programming, but it looks like it would be usable in more general cases. I probably don't know what I'm talking about, but here are some thoughts.
It doesn't make use of std.concurrency, would it make sense to build it off of message passing? I believe that std.concurrency's interface is meant to scale up to clusters, would this be doable for std.parallelism? On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9/10/10 1:29 PM, David Simcha wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> The latter. Anyway, my vetoing abilities are largely overrated. >> >> Andrei >> >> >> Yeah, it's just that I really want to make sure this lib isn't too >> narrowly tailored to scientific computing cases, especially in easily >> fixable ways. I want at least the high level design reviewed by you and >> Sean before I commit it, to make sure that it will be useful to people >> besides me, Lars Kyllingstad and Rob Jacques (the three scientific >> computing people involved with D, all of whom seem to like this >> library). I have yet to really have feedback from anyone anywhere about >> it besides scientific computing people. > > I believe that fork-join parallelism can be of much more general interest > once packaged in an accessible format. So I'm interested in following > David's work on std.parallelism through review and acceptance into Phobos. > > Andrei > _______________________________________________ > phobos mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos > -- Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it. - George Bernard Shaw _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
