std.parallelism changes done

[dsimcha]

On 3/24/2011 10:31 PM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> Well what can I say.. things can become more complex and you cannot
> always say this is parallelism and this is concurrency ore something.
> It's just nice when the libary does not get in the way when you are in a
> situation where eg. throughput and responsiveness or whatever else
> matter. Sometimes it can be a small change that can make or break the
> deal.

Agreed.  I'm not trying to be pedantic here, and I'm certainly willing 
to make **small** changes even if they stretch the scope somewhat into 
general concurrency.  It's just that I don't want to make big changes, 
especially if they will make the interface more complex, reduce 
efficiency and/or lock me into certain implementations.  (For example, 
using a priority queue precludes supporting work stealing later without 
breaking the priority feature.)