On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Antoine Pitrou
> wrote:
> > Le Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:03:35 +1000,
> > Nick Coghlan a écrit :
> >> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Brian Curtin
> >> wrote:
> >> > Now that we have concurrent.futures, is ther
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:03:35 +1000,
> Nick Coghlan a écrit :
>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Brian Curtin
>> wrote:
>> > Now that we have concurrent.futures, is there any plan for
>> > multiprocessing to follow suit? PEP 3148 mentions
Le Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:03:35 +1000,
Nick Coghlan a écrit :
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Brian Curtin
> wrote:
> > 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 [0], which would
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Brian Curtin wrote:
>> 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
>> [0], which would be now.
>
>
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Brian Curtin wrote:
> 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
> [0], which would be now.
As Jesse said, moving multiprocessing or threading wholesale
2011/8/10 Raymond Hettinger :
>
> On Aug 10, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
>> Le Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:54:33 -0500,
>> Benjamin Peterson a écrit :
>>> 2011/8/10 Brian Curtin :
Now that we have concurrent.futures, is there any plan for
multiprocessing to follow suit? PEP 3148 me
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Brian Curtin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 15:36, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>
>> Le Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:54:33 -0500,
>> Benjamin Peterson a écrit :
>> > 2011/8/10 Brian Curtin :
>> > > Now that we have concurrent.futures, is there any plan for
>> > > multiprocess
On Aug 10, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:54:33 -0500,
> Benjamin Peterson a écrit :
>> 2011/8/10 Brian Curtin :
>>> 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
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 15:36, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:54:33 -0500,
> Benjamin Peterson a écrit :
> > 2011/8/10 Brian Curtin :
> > > Now that we have concurrent.futures, is there any plan for
> > > multiprocessing to follow suit? PEP 3148 mentions a hope to add or move
> >
Le Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:54:33 -0500,
Benjamin Peterson a écrit :
> 2011/8/10 Brian Curtin :
> > 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 proposa
2011/8/10 Brian Curtin :
> 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
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
[0], which would be now.
[0] http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3148/#naming
___
Python-Dev mailing li
12 matches
Mail list logo