Nick Coghlan writes: > On 26/05/10 13:51, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > > People have been asking "what's special about this module, to violate > > the BCP principle?" There's nothing special about the fact that > > several people would use a "robust and debugged" futures module if it > > were in the stdlib. That's true of *every* module that is worth a > > PEP. > > The trick with futures and executor pools is that they're a *better* way > of programming with threads in many cases.
and > However, given the choices of [...]. I'll choose the first option > every time, and my programs will be the worse for it. Again, nothing all that special about those; lots of proposed changes satisfy similar conditions. I don't think anyone denies the truth or applicability of those arguments. But are they enough? Really, what you're arguing is "now is better than never." Indeed, that is so. But you shouldn't forget that is immediately followed by "although never is often better than *right* now." _______________________________________________ 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
