On 24May2010 10:47, Stephen J. Turnbull <step...@xemacs.org> wrote: | Brian Quinlan writes: | > If you are familiar with threads then writing a "good enough" solution | > without futures probably won't take you very long. Also, unless you | > are familiar with another futures implementation, you aren't likely to | > know where to look. | | That looks like an argument *against* your module, to me. Why would | people look for it in the stdlib if they're not looking for it at all, | and specifically because anybody who would know enough to look for | "something like" it is also able to devise a good-enough solution? | You're describing a solution in search of a user, not a user in search | of a solution, and it would appear to violate "not every three-line | function" as well as TOOWTDI.
This might be a terminology problem. I think, above, Brian means "good enough" to mean "looks ok at first cut but doesn't handle the corner cases". Which usually means obscure breakage later. I almost am Brian's hypothetical user. I've got a "FuncMultiQueue" that accepts callables in synchronous and asynchronous modes for future possibly-concurrent execution, just as the futures module does. I've spent a _lot_ of time debugging it. There's a lot to be said for a robust implementation of a well defined problem. Brian's module, had it been present and presuming it robust and debugged, would have been quite welcome. Cheers, -- Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au> DoD#743 http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/ I am a Bear of Very Little Brain and long words Bother Me. - Winnie-the-Pooh _______________________________________________ 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
