sam.saffron / gmail.com wrote:
> I am not a huge fan of the name threadlet, it just does not sound right. 

Is "Task" better?   Or "CoThread" (like "coroutine").
Actually I don't like "CoThread" much, but "Task" is
short and a somewhat popular name:

	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_(computing)

> What if a new construct is introduced:
> 
> pool = ThreadPool.new(concurrency: 100, max_workers: 5 # optional)

I really don't like that.  It's too much up-front cost to having
to declare a pool ahead-of-time.  One thing I love about
Fiber/Thread/fork is they can be used anywhere, even when deep
inside libraries.

That said, glibc has internal caching of thread stacks, and Ruby
also caches Fiber stacks internally, but they're completely
transparent to the user.  There's also code for an internal
Thread cache for Ruby, but it's broken with fork and disabled, atm

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>