On 26 May 2010, at 18:44, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Nick Coghlan writes: >> On 26/05/10 13:51, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > >>> People have been asking "what's special about this module, to >>> violate >>> the BCP principle?" There's nothing special about the fact that >>> several people would use a "robust and debugged" futures module if >>> it >>> were in the stdlib. That's true of *every* module that is worth a >>> PEP. >> >> The trick with futures and executor pools is that they're a >> *better* way >> of programming with threads in many cases. > > and > >> However, given the choices of [...]. I'll choose the first option >> every time, and my programs will be the worse for it. > > Again, nothing all that special about those; lots of proposed changes > satisfy similar conditions. I don't think anyone denies the truth or > applicability of those arguments. But are they enough? > > Really, what you're arguing is "now is better than never." Indeed, > that is so. But you shouldn't forget that is immediately followed by > "although never is often better than *right* now." I've been trying to stay out of the meta-discussions but "*right* now" would be >6 months if it applies in this context. If that is what "*right* now" means to you then I hope that I never have a heart attack in your presence and need an ambulance *right* now :-) 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