[Python-Dev] pep8ity future (original) (raw)

Guido van Rossum guido at python.org
Wed Jun 11 05:12:48 CEST 2008

I don't see it the same way; this is a terribly unimportant API, so let's not mess with it. threading.py is worth fixing (a) because it's so popular, and (b) because some folks insisted that the new multiprocessing module have an API that is as similar as possible to threading. IOW The general moratorium on pep8ifying remains; we made a specific exception for threading.py for very specific reasons.

--Guido

On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Armin Ronacher <armin.ronacher at active-4.com> wrote:

Hi,

That's just a flaming-sword thread but I want to mention it nonetheless :-) Basically I propose getting rid of future.Feature.getMandatoryRelease() in favour of future.Feature.mandatory. That's backwards compatibile and much more pythonic. Getters/Setters are considered unpythonic and the getting rid of all that Java-like naming sounds like a good idea to me :) If threading/processing gets a pep8ified API with 2.6, why not future? Proposed patch: http://paste.pocoo.org/show/64512/

Regards, Armin

Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev at python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org

-- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list