RetroSearch Browse

Sat Mar 6 23:47:57 CET 2010 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-March/098243.html

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> writes:

> I have to admit Jean-Paul's explanation a pretty convincing reason for
> adopting "future" rather than "promise". But I'm with Skip, I would
> prefer that the module be named "future" rather than "futures".

Has anyone in this very long thread raised the issue that Python
*already* uses this term for the name of a module with a totally
unrelated purpose; the ‘__future__’ pseudo-module?

That alone seems a pretty strong reason to avoid the word “future”
(singular or plural) for some other module name.

-- 
 \     “Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as |
  `\            society is free to use the results.” —Richard Stallman |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-March/098243.html below:

[Python-Dev] [PEP 3148] futures - execute computations asynchronously