On 29/05/10 10:19, Jesse Noller wrote: >> In my opinion, it is high time for the std lib to pay more attention to >> the final Zen: >> >> Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those! >> >> >> > Yes, your suggestion for how to move things is the way we would want to > do it, and in the back of my head, what we should do long term - just > not right now. Yep, this is what I have been saying as well. 1. Using concurrency.futures rather than a top level futures module resolves the potential confusion with __future__ and stock market futures without inventing our own name for a well established computer science concept. 2. With the concurrency package in place following PEP 3148, we can separately consider the question of if/when/how to move other concurrency related modules (e.g. threading, multiprocessing, Queue) into that package at a later date. Since this topic keeps coming up, some reasoning along these lines should go into PEP 3148. 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