Gabriel Scherer

The latter part of your question ("-1 peppered around") is related to the discussion in #77. We have to be a bit careful about "a pool of n domains" means....

Slightly more comments; - I think that the suggestion of #87 is reasonable: make the simple code easy. It will also be easier to adapt later if we figure out...

Yes, I believe that `Chan` would probably work indeed. I tested `domain-shims` against all parallel tests in the compiler testsuite that don't use effect handlers. Everything worked out of the...

I came here because I was bitten by the *new* API which I found confusing, and I was about to open an issue saying "hey maybe we should rename this...

(If others agree that the current state is not really satisfying, I think the present issue could be reopened.)

I agree that it's a simpler model to think about. If we wanted to go this way (present this as the expected usage mode), we could probably also simplify the...

On an unrelated note: one benefit I would expect from rethinking the API a bit is that the Task operations (`async`, `await`, `parallel_for` etc.) should not require a `pool` parameter...

There are also implementation issues arising from this API confusion. For example, currently if you share a pool between two independent domains and they both call `Task.run` on separate tasks,...

I propose an API sketch in #92. It's not magically solving problems, but I tried to separate the various concerns, and I believe that it would make things easier to...

This is somewhat of a tangent, but do you have a rough idea of the performance cost of this "over-committing during the minor GC" issue that you described? It sounds...