On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 12:19 PM 5/15/2008 +1200, Greg Ewing wrote: >> >> Andrew McNabb wrote: >> >>> If it made people feel better, maybe it should be called threading2 >>> instead of multiprocessing. >> >> I think that errs in the other direction, making it sound >> like just another way of doing single-process threading, >> which it's not. >> >> Maybe "multicore" would help give the right impression? > > Sounds like a marketing win to me, since it directly addresses the "python > doesn't do multicore" meme. >
-1 on "multicore" - multiprocess or multiprocessing are a fine names. cores are irrelevant. systems have multiple cpus real or virtual regardless of how many dies, sockets and cores there are. +0.5 on inclusion. that means i am happy if it does but don't think it needs to make it into 2.6/3.0. leave inclusion for 2.7/3.1. its easy for people to install from an external source for now if they want it. -gps _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
