On 24May2010 10:47, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen at xemacs.org> wrote:
| 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.
This might be a terminology problem. I think, above, Brian means "good
enough" to mean "looks ok at first cut but doesn't handle the corner
cases". Which usually means obscure breakage later.
I almost am Brian's hypothetical user. I've got a "FuncMultiQueue" that
accepts callables in synchronous and asynchronous modes for future
possibly-concurrent execution, just as the futures module does. I've
spent a _lot_ of time debugging it.
There's a lot to be said for a robust implementation of a well defined
problem. Brian's module, had it been present and presuming it robust and
debugged, would have been quite welcome.
Cheers,
--
Cameron Simpson <cs at zip.com.au> DoD#743
http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/
I am a Bear of Very Little Brain and long words Bother Me.
- Winnie-the-Pooh
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