Hi Fijal,
>> Or maybe, keeping in touch with "concurrent.futures" from Python 3.2,
>> should we make it "nonconcurrent.schedule"...? :-)
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski <fij...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In CPython they introduced concurrent.* namespace. How about we reuse it, by
> say concurrent.{ame,transaction,stm}?
I'll take it that you didn't read the mail you are answering to...?
As you can see with other mails on this very thread, it's quite hard
to convince people that they need to think in terms of serial
execution and not concurrent execution. (Sometimes, I even have to
remind myself of this, after thinking in the bogus direction for a
while.) I'm really, really unsure that putting the module in the
"concurrent" package is going to help here...
A bientôt,
Armin.
_______________________________________________
pypy-dev mailing list
pypy-dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
