If we're going to choose a name that abstracts the implementation details
(and rightly so), why not just go with `navigator.concurrency`?

Sincerely,
    James Greene
    Sent from my [smart?]phone
On May 4, 2014 8:50 AM, "Adam Barth" <w...@adambarth.com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Tobie Langel <tobie.lan...@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > On May 4, 2014, at 7:45, Rik Cabanier <caban...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Eli Grey <m...@eligrey.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> The proposal specifically states using logical cores, which handles
> > >> all of the CPUs you mentioned properly.
> > >>
> > >> Intel CPUs with hyperthreading enabled report logical cores as double
> > >> the hardware cores. Depending on the version and configuration of the
> > >> Samsung Exynos Octa big.LITTLE CPUs, you will get either 4 logical
> > >> cores (only one cluster can run at a time) or 8 logical cores
> > >> (big.LITTLE MP, available in Exynos 5420 or later only).
> > >>
> > >
> > > Great!
> > > Make sure this is captured when it is put in a specification.
> > > Otherwise the subtlety between an actual and a logical core might get
> > lost.
> >
> > Shouldn't this also be captured in the API's name?
> >
>
> Maybe navigator.hardwareConcurrency as a nod to the C++11 name?
>
> Adam
>

Reply via email to