On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 15:36, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote:
> Le Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:54:33 -0500, > Benjamin Peterson <benja...@python.org> a écrit : > > 2011/8/10 Brian Curtin <brian.cur...@gmail.com>: > > > Now that we have concurrent.futures, is there any plan for > > > multiprocessing to follow suit? PEP 3148 mentions a hope to add or move > > > things in the future > > > > Is there some sort of concrete proposal? The PEP just seems to mention > > it as an idea. > > > > In general, -1. I think we don't need to be moving things around more > > to little advantage. > > Agreed. Also, flat is better than nested. Whoever wants to populate the > concurrent package should work on new features to be added to it, rather > than plans to rename things around. I agree with flat being better than nested and won't be pushing to move things around, but the creation of the concurrent package seemed like a place to put those things. I just found myself typing "concurrent.multiprocessing" a minute ago, so I figured I'd put it out there.
_______________________________________________ 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
