Buffer and Chunk look the same

[zms9110750]

IAsyncEnumerable<TSource[]> Chunk(this System.Collections.Generic.IAsyncEnumerable source, int size);

I don't think the issue of returning Array and List is very important.
In that case, he is redundant. Will it be marked as Obsolete in the future?

[idg10]

One reason we've not done this is that it's unclear what, if anything, Microsoft will do about the other forms of Buffer.

The IAsyncEnumerable<T> implementation in System.Interactive.Async offers two overloads: the one that is directly equivalent to the single overload of Chunk, and another one that takes a skip argument. This makes it possible to have overlapping windows, which is one reason the Ix.NET version was called Buffer and not Chunk. The name Chunk is really only an accurate description for that one simple case where the source is split into disjoint pieces.

If we marked the simple case that is equivalent to Chunk as Obsolete what do we do with the other overload? I don't think we should rename that Chunk because it isn't really chunking. But then if we keep it as Buffer but deprecate the overload that doesn't take a skip argument, you then end up with the situation that Chunk is now just a specialized version of Buffer(size, skip) so it's weird that they have different names.

I tend to regard Chunk as an alias for the simplest form of Buffer. (I would consider adding a Chunk to Rx.NET, which has loads of overloads of Buffer, handling a bunch of temporal scenarios not currently supported for IAsyncEnumerable<T>. But I wouldn't deprecate the one overload of Buffer it happens to be equivalent to. I'd just consider it to be an alias that some people might find more readable.)