On 5/26/2010 8:03 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 27/05/10 02:27, Terry Reedy wrote: >> I am suggesting that if we add a package, we do it right, from the >> beginning. > > This is a reasonable point of view, but I wouldn't want to hold up PEP > 3148 over it (call it a +0 for the idea in general, but a -1 for linking > it to the acceptance of PEP 3148).
That sounds backward. How can you justify accepting PEP 3148 into a "concurrent" namespace without also accepting the demand for such a namespace? What is the contingency if this TBD migration PEP is not accepted, what happens to PEP 3148? After all, there was some complaints about just calling it "futures", without putting it in a "concurrent" namespace. -- Scott Dial sc...@scottdial.com scod...@cs.indiana.edu _______________________________________________ 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
