== Quote from Simen kjaeraas (simen.kja...@gmail.com)'s article > On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 05:40:08 +0100, dsimcha <dsim...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On 3/18/2011 11:29 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > >> 1. Library proper: > >> > >> * "In the case of non-random access ranges, parallel foreach is still > >> usable but buffers lazily to an array..." Wouldn't strided processing > >> help? If e.g. 4 threads the first works on 0, 4, 8, ... second works on > >> 1, 5, 9, ... and so on. > > > > You can have this if you want, by setting the work unit size to 1. > > Setting it to a larger size just causes more elements to be buffered, > > which may be more efficient in some cases. > Please add an example showing that, too. Sure, the documentation says > that's what's being done, but an example would show it more clearly.
I don't understand how this can be demonstrated in an example. It's an under-the-hood thing. The only place this appears in the API is in the workUnitSize parameter.
