From: Olaf van der Spek (olafvdspek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-27 07:59:52
On 4/27/06, Phil Nash <phil.nash.lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I have to admit, when I returned to boost after some time away and saw a
> lot of discussion about the Asio library, I did wonder why boost was
> getting involved in audio!
> Of course, once I got around to reading the content of the postings it
> cleared things up - but even if I suspected that Boost's Asio was not
> the same as Steinberg's, I didn't realise that it was to do with Asynch
> (or Synch) IO until I looked into it more closely.
>
> It's more for the latter reason that I too would welcome a (slight)
> change to the name (remotely possible trademark issues aside).
> From the current suggestions I like async_io, although I see that it
> could be a problem if a synchronouse version was implemented.
> I like the ambiguity of the S, which some have exploited to mean: Aynch/
> Synch IO. Perhaps we could keep the letters, but stress the grouping
> like this: as_io ?
Would that avoid "I didn't realise that it was to do with Asynch (or
Synch) IO until I looked into it more closely."?
Although it does/may provide support for sync operations, the main
purpose of the library are the async operations AFAIK.