Re: [boost] [Async] Naming land grab?

On 02/10/2023 17:18, Vinnie Falco wrote:

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 7:40 AM Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:

...

Seeing as nobody here has raised this concern to date, can I confirm everybody here is fine with proposed Boost.Async being called Boost.Async?

I don't like it at all and I agree with the "land grab" concern. I was hoping this library would be rejected and the naming would be a non-issue. There were only what, 2 reviews?

I believe the current count is six reviews, and two sets of detailed notes which are most of a review each. More than enough. All recommend acceptance incidentally. My work will be to condense the conditions into a feasible set for Klemens to work upon. I see no current reason why it won't be an accept, just with conditions. It's not too late for a review from you or Richard if you have strong feelings that the library ought to be rejected?

...

If you are not, please suggest a preferred alternative name.

Certainly, the naming of a library plays a significant role in its perception and utility. Here are ten alternative names that aim to be specific and descriptive, while avoiding a "land grab":

Boost.Coroutinify Boost.Asiotasker Boost.CoAsio Boost.Yielder Boost.AwaitIO Boost.AsioGen Boost.FiberAsync Boost.Eventuals Boost.TaskifyAsio Boost.CoroutineX

Choosing a name that resonates with both the functionality and the ethos of the library can be a delightful challenge. Happy coding!

---

The ChatGPT-4 prompt which produced the above:

A boost library is proposed which is based on Boost.Asio and C++20 coroutines, and calls itself Boost.Async because it provides generators, tasks, and promises to facilitate coroutine implementations. A reviewer has raised the concern that the name Boost.Async constitutes a naming "Land grab" as it is too generic. Propose 10 other names for this library which are not generic.

Clever GPT. Niall