# \[Concurrency\] Structured concurrency **URL:** \ **Category:** Pitches\ **Tags:** concurrency\ **Created:** [October 30, 2020, 6:44pm UTC](https://forums.swift.org/t/concurrency-structured-concurrency/41622 "2020-10-30T18:44:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 50
**Author:** ![dfunckt](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/swift/user_avatar/forums.swift.org/dfunckt/32/2349_2.png) [@dfunckt](https://forums.swift.org/u/dfunckt)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2020, 10:01am UTC](https://forums.swift.org/t/concurrency-structured-concurrency/41622/50 "2020-11-01T10:01:41Z")
Scopes are typically implicit (i.e. usually there's no handle to them) so if the nursery wasn't passed as an argument I would agree that "task scope" would be the best name for the concept. As it is though, inner closures can reference the nursery and add tasks to it, so I think nurseries are "task groups" really. It also feels like groups carry a lot less cognitive weight than scopes and most Swift programmers are already familiar with groups from libdispatch, which could help with adoption. The distinction is minor and I guess I'm fine either way, but thought I'd throw this in for consideration. --- _[View the full topic](https://forums.swift.org/t/concurrency-structured-concurrency/41622)._