[Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement (original) (raw)

Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Thu May 27 17:46:13 CEST 2010

On 27/05/10 12:48, Scott Dial wrote:

On 5/26/2010 8:03 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:

On 27/05/10 02:27, Terry Reedy wrote:

I am suggesting that if we add a package, we do it right, from the beginning.

This is a reasonable point of view, but I wouldn't want to hold up PEP 3148 over it (call it a +0 for the idea in general, but a -1 for linking it to the acceptance of PEP 3148). That sounds backward. How can you justify accepting PEP 3148 into a "concurrent" namespace without also accepting the demand for such a namespace? What is the contingency if this TBD migration PEP is not accepted, what happens to PEP 3148? After all, there was some complaints about just calling it "futures", without putting it in a "concurrent" namespace.

We can accept PEP 3148 by saying that we're happy to add the extra namespace level purely for disambiguation purposes, even if we never follow through on adding anything else to the package (although I consider such an outcome to be highly unlikely).

Any future additions or renames to move things into the concurrent package would then be handled as their own PEPs.

Cheers, Nick.

-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list