[phobos] std.parallelism: Request for review/comment

[Lars Tandle Kyllingstad]

I have tried it before, and based on that (unless you have made
substantial changes since it's first incarnation as 'parallelfuture') I
say it's good to go.

I only have two suggestions:

 1. Can we call it std.parallel instead?

 2. IMO, the killer feature of the module is the parallel foreach.
Therefore, I think parallel() should be moved to the top of the module,
so it's the first thing one sees upon reading the documentation.

-Lars


On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 13:56 -0400, David Simcha wrote:
> Since there seems to be interest in my parallelfuture library becoming 
> std.parallelism even if it uses unchecked implicit sharing, I've cleaned 
> up the code, removed anything that could possibly be construed as having 
> been borrowed from Tango (which previously was just a few tiny, 
> unoriginal ASM snippets) and improved the documentation.  I'm requesting 
> review of it.  The code is available at:
> 
> http://dsource.org/projects/scrapple/browser/trunk/parallelFuture/std_parallelism.d
> 
> A draft of how the documentation would look is available at:
> 
> http://cis.jhu.edu/~dsimcha/d/phobos/std_parallelism.html
> 
> BTW, how are we working the review process for new modules?  Do they get 
> reviewed here first, then in the NG, should they be posted directly to 
> the NG, or what?
> 
> --Dave
> _______________________________________________
> phobos mailing list
> phobos at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos