On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/11/7 Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net>: >> I'm not sure this has anything to do with the discussion about futures >> anyway. > > It's not - unless the suggestion that futures get added into > multiprocessing was serious. > > Personally, I like the idea of a "concurrent" namespace - > concurrent.futures seems like an ideal place for the module.
My point in saying that was to note that I've wanted to add something like this into multiprocessing for awhile. More expansive use of context managers to control pools of processes, possibly decorators to indicate a function should be run in a process, etc. That all being said; I'm more closely aligned with the concept of building out/starting a python.concurrent package (starting with the futures package) and then refactoring some of the multiprocessing API into that package than I am adding futures right into multiprocessing. jesse _______________________________________________ stdlib-sig mailing list stdlib-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig
