On May 23, 2010, at 9:43 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
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.
In C++ and Java, there is only one result-retrieving method so "get"
seems like a reasonable name.
My implementation has a second method .exception(), which returns the
exception raised by the submitted function (or None if no exception
was raised). I thought that having multiple getter methods, where one
is called .get() would be a bit confusing.
But I don't really care so I'm -0.
Cheers,
Brian
_______________________________________________
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
