On May 23, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Brian Quinlan <br...@sweetapp.com>
wrote:
Rename "executor" => "executer"
-1 for consistency with Java.
-1 pending an explanation of why "executer" is better
Rename "submit" to "apply"
"apply" focuses attention on the function object, while "submit"
focuses attention, properly I think, on the fact that you're handing
something to the executor to run. So -1.
-1
Rename "done" to "finished"
"done" is nice and short, and I don't think "finished" or "completed"
will be any less prone to people thinking the task actually ran. So
-1.
-0
Rename "not_finished" to "pending"
+0.5. Doesn't matter that much, but pending is used elsewhere in the
proposal for this concept. On the other hand, "pending" could be
thought to refer to the state before "running". Possibly "finished"
should be renamed to "done" here, since it's described as '"finished",
contains the futures that completed (finished or were cancelled)',
which uses "finished" for two different concepts.
I think that using "finished" is bad terminology here.
So +1 to "finished" => "done".
I don't have a preference for "not_done" vs. "pending".
Rename "FIRST_COMPLETED" to "ONE_COMPLETED"
"ONE_COMPLETED" could imply that the first result set must contain
exactly one element, but in fact, if multiple tasks finish before the
waiting thread has a chance to wake up, multiple futures could be
returned as done. So -1.
A logician would probably call it "SOME_COMPLETED".
What about "ANY_COMPLETED"? Though I think that "FIRST_COMPLETED"
still reads better.
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
