On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Charles-François Natali <cf.nat...@gmail.com> wrote: > Why would the user care if multiprocessing is used behind the scene?
Err ... that was another set of questions that I forgot to ask. (A) Why bother raising an error if multiprocessing is unavailable? After all, there is a perfectly fine fallback... On other hand, errors should not pass silently. If a user has explicitly asked for multiprocessing, there should be some notice that it didn't happen. And builds are presumably something that a developer will monitor to respond to the Exception. (A1) What sort of Error? I'm inclined to raise the original ImportError, but the patch prefers a ValueError. (B) Assuming the exception, I suppose your question adds a 3rd special case of "Whatever the system suggests, and I don't care whether or not it involves multiprocessing." > It would be strange for processes=1 to fail if multiprocessing is not > available. As Claudiu pointed out, processes=1 should really mean 1 worker process, which is still different from "do everything in the main process". I'm not sure that level of control is really worth the complexity, but I'm not certain it isn't. > processes <= 0: use os.cpu_count() I could understand doing that for 0 or -1; what is the purpose of doing it for both, let alone for -4? Are we at the point where the parameter should just take positive integers or one of a set of specified string values? -jJ _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
