std.parallelism: Request for Review

[dsimcha]

== Quote from Lars T. Kyllingstad (public at kyllingen.NOSPAMnet)'s article
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 18:34:39 +0000, dsimcha wrote:
> > == Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org)'s
> > article
> >> On 3/4/11 5:32 AM, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 16:23:43 +0000, dsimcha wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Ok, so that's one issue to cross off the list.  To summarize the
> >> >> discussion so far, most of it's revolved around the issue of
> >> >> automatically determining how many CPUs are available and therefore
> >> >> how many threads the default pool should have. Previously,
> >> >> std.parallelism had been using core.cpuid for this task.  This
> >> >> module doesn't work yet on 64 bits and doesn't and isn't supposed to
> >> >> determine how many sockets/physical CPUs are available.  This was a
> >> >> point of miscommunication.
> >> >>
> >> >> std.parallelism now uses OS-specific APIs to determine the total
> >> >> number of cores available across all physical CPUs.  This appears to
> >> >> Just Work (TM) on 32-bit Windows, 32- and 64-bit Linux, and 32-bit
> >> >> Mac OS.
> >> >>
> >> >> We still need a volunteer to manage the review process.  As a
> >> >> reminder, for those of you who have been meaning to have a look but
> >> >> haven't, the Git repository is at:
> >> >>
> >> >> https://github.com/dsimcha/std.parallelism
> >> >>
> >> >> The pre-compiled documentation is at:
> >> >>
> >> >> http://cis.jhu.edu/~dsimcha/d/phobos/std_parallelism.html
> >> >
> >> > I'll volunteer as the review manager.
> >> >
> >> > Since the module has been through a few reviews already, both in this
> >> > group and on the Phobos mailing list, I don't think we need a lot
> >> > more time for that.  I suggest the following:
> >> >
> >> > - We give it one more week for the final review, starting today, 4
> >> > March. - If this review does not lead to major API changes, we start
> >> > the vote next Friday, 11 March.  Vote closes after one week, 18
> >> > March.
> >> >
> >> > How does this sound?
> >> >
> >> > -Lars
> >> I suggest let's make the review three weeks and the vote one week.
> >> Andrei
> >
> > This sounds reasonable.
> 3+1 weeks it is, then.  I'll announce it in a separate thread.
> -Lars

But then official "judgement day" will be April Fool's Day. I don't want anyone
thinking std.parallelism is an April Fool's joke.