Brian Quinlan writes: > If you are familiar with threads then writing a "good enough" solution > without futures probably won't take you very long. Also, unless you > are familiar with another futures implementation, you aren't likely to > know where to look. That looks like an argument *against* your module, to me. Why would people look for it in the stdlib if they're not looking for it at all, and specifically because anybody who would know enough to look for "something like" it is also able to devise a good-enough solution? You're describing a solution in search of a user, not a user in search of a solution, and it would appear to violate "not every three-line function" as well as TOOWTDI. I personally plan to defer to the people who know and use such constructs (specifically Glyph and Jesse), and who seem to be in favor (at least +0) of stabilizing an API for this in the stdlib. But you may want to rethink your sales pitch if you want to avoid giving ammo to the opposition. It sounds like you agree with them, except on the vote you cast.<wink>
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