On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 7:48 AM, P.J. Eby <p...@telecommunity.com> wrote: > At 02:49 PM 3/7/2010 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> >> P.J. Eby wrote: >> > (Personally, I think it would be better to just drop the ambitious title >> > and scope, and go for the "nice task queue" scope. I imagine, too, that >> > in that case Jean-Paul wouldn't need to worry about it being raised as a >> > future objection to Deferreds or some such getting into the stdlib.) >> >> This may be a terminology thing - to me futures *are* just a nice way to >> handle farming tasks out to worker threads or processes. You seem to see >> them as something more comprehensive than that. > > Actual futures are, yes. Specifically, futures are a mechanism for > asynchronous computation, whereas the PEP seems to be all about > synchronously managing parallel tasks. That's a huge difference. > > Technically, the things in the PEP (and by extension, Java's futures) match > the letter of the definition of a future, but not (IMO) the spirit. There's > no clean way to compose them, and at base they're more about parallelism > than asynchrony.
Do you have an example of a language or library that uses the term "future" to refer to what you're talking about? I'm curious to see what it looks like. _______________________________________________ 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
