(original) (raw)
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
It sounds like a reasonable approach to me.
In terms of naming, would you consider "concurrent.asyncio"? When we created that parent namespace for futures, one of the other suggested submodules discussed was the standard event loop API.
Hm. I want the threading and event world to be very clearly separate and different, since accidentally combining them is disastrous. So the concurrent package is the \*last\* place where I want asyncio to live. (And I realize there is also some multiprocessing support in that package -- but it still uses threads to wait for things.)