On May 28, 2010, at 11:31 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 29/05/10 10:19, Jesse Noller wrote:
In my opinion, it is high time for the std lib to pay more
attention to
the final Zen:
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!
Yes, your suggestion for how to move things is the way we would
want to
do it, and in the back of my head, what we should do long term - just
not right now.
Yep, this is what I have been saying as well.
1. Using concurrency.futures rather than a top level futures module
resolves the potential confusion with __future__ and stock market
futures without inventing our own name for a well established
computer science concept.
2. With the concurrency package in place following PEP 3148, we can
separately consider the question of if/when/how to move other
concurrency related modules (e.g. threading, multiprocessing, Queue)
into that package at a later date.
Since this topic keeps coming up, some reasoning along these lines
should go into PEP 3148.
I'll type something up this weekend and shoot it to Brian for
inclusion. I was hoping to be able to keep it out of the futures pep
itself, but it seems that won't work :)
Jesse
_______________________________________________
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
