On 4/27/06, Phil Nash <phil.nash.lists@gmail.com> 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.