On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Jesse Noller <jnoller at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Tres Seaver <tseaver at palladion.com> wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Jesse Noller wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Daniel Stutzbach >>> <daniel at stutzbachenterprises.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Brian Quinlan <brian at sweetapp.com> wrote: >>>>> import futures >>>> +1 on the idea, -1 on the name. It's too similar to "from __future__ import >>>> ...". >>> >>> Futures is a common term for this, and implemented named this in other >>> languages. I don't think we should be adopting things that are common, >>> and found elsewhere and then renaming them. >> >> - -1 to the name from me as well: it isn't "scoped" properly to make it >> clear what the module is about. If they were inside a pacakge named >> 'concurrency' or some such (as hinted by Jesse Noller, I think), the >> clash would go away. > > If people agree with this; do you feel the proposal of said namespace > should be a separate PEP, or piggy back on this? I don't want to piggy > back on Brian's hard work. A simple renaming of futures to concurrency.futures seems easy enough to swallow. (Though I haven't kept track of what other modules the PEP proposes.) -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
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