On 07:10 pm, [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:30 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
On 05:06 pm, [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Jesse Noller <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Daniel Stutzbach
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Brian Quinlan
<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> import futures
>
> +1 on the idea, -1 on the name.� It's too similar to "from
__future__
> import
> ...".
Futures is a common term for this, and implemented named this in
other
languages. I don't think we should be adopting things that are
common,
and found elsewhere and then renaming them.
Another common term for this is a "promise".
Promises aren't exactly the same. �This would be a particularly bad
name to
apply here.
Please explain. Even the Wikipedia article
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_and_promises), despite promising
to explain the difference, didn't explain it.
The "explicit" futures on the wikipedia page seems to cover what is
commonly referred to as a future. For example, Java's futures look like
this.
The "implicit" futures are what is generally called a promise. For
example, E's promises look like this.
Though the difference is mainly one of API, it turns out to make a
significant difference in what you can accomplish. Promises are much
more amenable to the pipelining optimization, for example. They're also
much harder to implement in Python without core language changes.
Jean-Paul
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
