Use the names chunk/join instead of split/cat?

[danieltowner]

C++23 has views::chunk, which converts a view into a range of views of some size, plus a remainder. This is essentially what simd_split does on std::simd. Unfortunately the name split in simd does something different to views::split, which creates a range of views using a delimiter, which introduces a mismatch in naming. I think simd_chunk might be a better name for what is currently simd_split, as it more closely matches how that name is already being used.

Similarly, simd_cat is doing essentially the same thing as views::join - converting a range of views into a single flat view. Unfortunately the string "cat" is also being used by strcat to do the same thing on strings, so this raises a small ambiguity here. However, if ranges and views are the future, then maybe simd_cat is better named simd_join to more closely relate to them?

[danieltowner]

Incidentally, in 1928R7, section "basic_simd and basic_simd_mask creation", the first template has a parameter T, but later uses V instead. Both should be the same. But it did get me thinking why a full simd type should be given to simd_split anyway? Why not just the size of the thing to split, rather than a type? To me it feels that the programmer has to work harder to use it; the compiler is already told the element type through the parameter, so why specify it again. I think this would be neater:

auto r = simd_split<8>(myValue)

instead of:

auto r = simd_split<simd<SomeType, 8>>(myValue);