Nick Coghlan wrote: > Jesse Noller wrote: > > Georg kindly published the PEP I submitted last night to the PEP site: > > > > http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0371/ > > > > This PEP includes some of the previous discussion on the processing > > module's inclusion, and I hope clears up/clarifies some of the > > goals/non goals and issues. I also included benchmark data and a link > > to the code used for said benchmarks. > > > > I would like to renew the discussion now that "there is a PEP" to see > > if there are any outstanding things people would like to get resolved. > > I chose to continue to push it for 2.6 / 3.0 inclusion due to feedback > > both here and elsewhere that people would rather see this in sooner in > > some form, rather than later (i.e.: 2.7/3.1). > > +1 from me (under the 'multiprocessing' name, with the understanding > that some code duplication with other parts of the standard library > may still remain in 2.6/3.0). +1 from me as well. I think multiple-processes is over played as a concurrency solution in Python (where you need to marshal lots of data in and out, the overheads of multiple processes can be very expensive) - but it is a very good solution for some problems. Michael Foord > > From a non-web programmer's point of view, it seems like even more of > a gain than standard library support for JSON ;) > > Cheers, > Nick. > -- http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/ http://www.theotherdelia.co.uk/ http://www.voidspace.org.uk/ http://www.ironpython.info/ http://www.resolverhacks.net/
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4