On 27/05/10 12:48, Scott Dial wrote:
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.
We can accept PEP 3148 by saying that we're happy to add the extra
namespace level purely for disambiguation purposes, even if we never
follow through on adding anything else to the package (although I
consider such an outcome to be highly unlikely).
Any future additions or renames to move things into the concurrent
package would then be handled as their own PEPs.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
