marlowsd at gmail.com
Fri Jun 15 15:31:03 CEST 2012
On 14/06/2012 22:54, Lauri Alanko wrote:
> Quoting "Simon Marlow" <marlowsd at gmail.com>:
>> Naming is obviously up for discussion too.
> I feel that "Async" is a bit too generic and doesn't very precisely
> characterize this particular construct. How about "Future", as similar
> things are called in e.g. Alice
> <http://www.ps.uni-saarland.de/alice/manual/futures.html> and Java
"Future" evokes notions of parallelism for me, rather than concurrency.
I think the term is more often used in a parallel setting.
There's a precedent for using 'async' for concurrency: see the new C#
and F# async extensions:
But naming is hard, and if everyone wanted to use "future" instead I
wouldn't object very strongly.
More information about the Libraries