On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 10:48:09 -0500, "P.J. Eby" <p...@telecommunity.com> wrote: > At 02:49 PM 3/7/2010 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: > >I agree the PEP should just target what the current implementation > >provides and put whatever scope limitations are needed in the preamble > >text to make that clear. > > Yep. I'm just saying "parallel task queueing" is a much better > description of what the implementation is/does, and would suggest > renaming Future -> Task and Executor -> WorkerPool or some > such. These names would be *much* clearer to people who've never > heard of futures, as well as more appropriate to the actual scope of > what this does.
For what it's worth: I don't have any particular knowledge in this area. I did loosely follow the stdlib-sig discussion. I wasn't really sure exactly what the module was about or what a 'future' was, or why I would want to use one. I did get that it was about parallel execution of tasks, but it seemed like there had to be more to it than that. Hearing it called a 'worker pool' makes a lightbulb go off and I can now understand why this would be a useful facility to have in the standard library. -- R. David Murray www.bitdance.com _______________________________________________ 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
