std.parallelism: Naming?

[Gary Whatmore]

Dmitry Olshansky Wrote:

> On 16.04.2011 22:39, dsimcha wrote:
> > I'm reconsidering the naming of std.parallelism.  The name is catchy, 
> > but perhaps too general.  std.parallelism currently targets SMP 
> > parallelism.  In the future it would be nice for Phobos to target SIMD 
> > parallelism and distributed message passing parallelism, too.  These 
> > might belong in different modules.  Then again, std.smp or 
> > std.multicore or something just doesn't sound as catchy.  SIMD would 
> > probably just be array ops and stuff.  Distributed message passing 
> > would probably be absorbed by std.concurrency since the distinction 
> > between concurrency and parallelism isn't as obvious at this level and 
> > std.concurrency is already the home of message passing stuff.  Please 
> > comment.
> 
> I'm inclined to go with std.parallelism, the name is so cute :).
> On the serious side of it, I think SIMDs  really belong to compiler 
> internals and std.intrinsics.
> And any message passing should most likely go into std.concurency, even 
> though that lives some scenarios somewhat on the edge of two (parallelism).

I'd vote for std.parallel.smp and std.parallel.simd. But Phobos does not support deep nested package names, which is good. Otherwise the naming would be a hell on earth just like Java or Tango.