(original) (raw)

On 29 Sep 2013 02:52, "Guido van Rossum" <guido@python.org> wrote:
\>
\> 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.)

Makes sense to me!

Cheers,
Nick.

>
\> --
\> --Guido van Rossum (python.org/\~guido)