On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan <at> gmail.com> writes: >>> Given the proximity of RC1, Antoine's option 3 (leaving the capitalised >>> factory functions in both multiprocessing and threading APIs) is >>> actually sounding pretty appealing to me at the moment. >> >> I was actually suggesting this course for the threading module, whose API has >> existed for a lot of time now, but I think it would be better to clean up >> multiprocessing before its first stable relase. But the issue of time and >> manpower starts being a bit critical :) > > Unfortunately, that's where the whole "close to a drop-in replacement > for threading" concept brings additions to the threading module API back > into play. > > If I'd realised this a bit sooner I probably would have been pushing for > it to be dealt with for 2.6/3.0, but given that it's the kind of change > that we can easily do through the normal API deprecation process, I'm > really not comfortable messing with it this close to the release > (particularly after Jesse found a problem with the seemingly innocent > change to the multiprocessing implementation in issue 3589). > > Cheers, > Nick. >
Yes, the innocuous change in 3589 - which really made a lot of sense, introduced a bug that didn't get caught until a complete make distclean; rebuild - that actually scared me off of the idea of addressing 3589 right now. I would move 3589 to 2.7/3.1 and file an additional bug for any further pep8-ifying to both the threading and mp APIs against 2.7 and 3.1 -jesse _______________________________________________ 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
