On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyass...@gmail.com> wrote: ... snip >> >> In any case, I've updated the docs and PEP to indicate that deadlocks are >> possible. > > Thanks. I still disagree, and think users are much more likely to be > surprised by occasional deadlocks due to cycles of executors than they are > about guaranteed deadlocks from cycles of futures, but I don't want to be > the only one holding up the PEP by insisting on this. > I think there are places the names could be improved, and Jesse probably has > an opinion on exactly where this should go in the package hierarchy, but I > think it will make a good addition to the standard library. Thanks for > working on it! > Jeffrey
Yes; I think this needs to be part of a new "concurrent" package in the stdlib - e.g. concurrent.futures, understanding things within multiprocessing will be put in there shortly, and possibly other things such as a threadpool and other common sugary abstractions. jesse _______________________________________________ stdlib-sig mailing list stdlib-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig
