On May 28, 2010, at 11:31 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > I'll type something up this weekend and shoot it to Brian for inclusion. I was hoping to be able to keep it out of the futures pep itself, but it seems that won't work :) Jesse
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