I think the PEP's overall API is good to go. On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Brian Quinlan <br...@sweetapp.com> wrote: > > On 22 May 2010, at 23:59, R. David Murray wrote: >> If there is still discussion then perhaps the PEP isn't ready for >> pronouncement yet. At some point someone can decide it is all >> bikeshedding and ask for pronouncement on that basis, but I don't >> think it is appropriate to cut off discussion by saying "it's ready for >> pronouncement" unless you want increase the chances of its getting >> rejected. > > Here are the new proposed non-documentation changes that I've collected (let > me know if I've missed any): > > ...
I propose to rename the Future.result method to Future.get. "get" is what Java (http://java.sun.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/Future.html) and C++ (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2010/n3092.pdf section 30.6.6 para 12) use, and the word "result" doesn't seem particularly better or worse than "get" for our purposes, which inclines me to stay consistent. > We can discuss naming for all eternity and never reach a point where even > half of the participants are satisfied. Agreed. To reduce the length of the discussion, I'm not going to reply to counter-arguments to my proposal, but I think it'll be useful to Jesse if people who agree or disagree speak up briefly. I'll reply the other naming proposals in another message. Jeffrey _______________________________________________ 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
