On May 23, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Brian Quinlan <brian at sweetapp.com> > wrote: >> Rename "executor" => "executer" > > -1 for consistency with Java. > -1 pending an explanation of why "executer" is better >> Rename "submit" to "apply" > > "apply" focuses attention on the function object, while "submit" > focuses attention, properly I think, on the fact that you're handing > something to the executor to run. So -1. -1 >> Rename "done" to "finished" > > "done" is nice and short, and I don't think "finished" or "completed" > will be any less prone to people thinking the task actually ran. So > -1. -0 >> Rename "not_finished" to "pending" > > +0.5. Doesn't matter that much, but pending is used elsewhere in the > proposal for this concept. On the other hand, "pending" could be > thought to refer to the state before "running". Possibly "finished" > should be renamed to "done" here, since it's described as '"finished", > contains the futures that completed (finished or were cancelled)', > which uses "finished" for two different concepts. I think that using "finished" is bad terminology here. So +1 to "finished" => "done". I don't have a preference for "not_done" vs. "pending". >> Rename "FIRST_COMPLETED" to "ONE_COMPLETED" > > "ONE_COMPLETED" could imply that the first result set must contain > exactly one element, but in fact, if multiple tasks finish before the > waiting thread has a chance to wake up, multiple futures could be > returned as done. So -1. A logician would probably call it "SOME_COMPLETED". What about "ANY_COMPLETED"? Though I think that "FIRST_COMPLETED" still reads better. Cheers, Brian
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