On 27/05/10 12:48, Scott Dial wrote: > On 5/26/2010 8:03 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> On 27/05/10 02:27, Terry Reedy wrote: >>> I am suggesting that if we add a package, we do it right, from the >>> beginning. >> >> This is a reasonable point of view, but I wouldn't want to hold up PEP >> 3148 over it (call it a +0 for the idea in general, but a -1 for linking >> it to the acceptance of PEP 3148). > > That sounds backward. How can you justify accepting PEP 3148 into a > "concurrent" namespace without also accepting the demand for such a > namespace? What is the contingency if this TBD migration PEP is not > accepted, what happens to PEP 3148? After all, there was some complaints > about just calling it "futures", without putting it in a "concurrent" > namespace. We can accept PEP 3148 by saying that we're happy to add the extra namespace level purely for disambiguation purposes, even if we never follow through on adding anything else to the package (although I consider such an outcome to be highly unlikely). Any future additions or renames to move things into the concurrent package would then be handled as their own PEPs. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ---------------------------------------------------------------
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