RetroSearch Browse

Sat Mar 6 23:55:08 CET 2010 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-March/098244.html

On Mar 6, 2010, at 5:47 PM, Ben Finney <ben+python at benfinney.id.au>  
wrote:

> "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.
>

Yes, they have, and putting it in a sub namespace has also come up. In  
the thread.

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-March/098244.html below:

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