18861, "ronawho", "Barrier module stabilization - module and type names", "2021-12-14T20:56:30Z"
The barrier module is named Barriers, where the plural aspect always strikes me as a bit odd. For history: Barrier -> Barriers renaming was done for Rename Barrier module · Issue #6979 · chapel-lang/chapel · GitHub because the module name conflicted with the constructor. Since then, we changed from constructors to initializers and replaced the class with a record-wrapped class, but the record is still named Barrier. I think we've typically been going with lower case for records, so this is an exception to that rule.
Could we go back to a Barrier module with a barrier record at this point? Would it make more sense to put this into a more general Collectives module? Within the team there has been preference for Collectives module and barrier type. Note that we discussed why plural Collectives feels right but Barriers doesn't and the general sentiment is that there will be multiple collectives, but the plural form is also just the expected term. I think of it as "Collective Operations" shortened to just "Collectives".