On Wed, 26 May 2010 08:57:15 pm Greg Ewing wrote: > * I'm bothered by the term "future". To my mind, it's > too long on cleverness and too short on explanativeness.
"Futures" is a standard term in computer science which has been around for 33 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_and_promises > I think that the standard library is no place for > cuteness of naming. You mean like pickle, marshal, shelve, turtle, and even dict? > * I don't see a strong reason to put this module > inside a newly-created namespace. If there were a > namespace called "concurrent", I would expect to find > other existing concurrency-related modules there as > well, such as threading and multiprocessing. But we > can't move them there without breaking existing code. I'm sure that it can be done easily, although not quickly. For instance, we move threading into the concurrent namespace, and leave behind in its place a stub: from concurrent.threading import * Then for (say) 3.3 the stub could gain a PendingDeprecation warning, then in 3.4 a Deprecation warning, and finally in 3.5 or 3.6 it could be removed. -- Steven D'Aprano _______________________________________________ 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
