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

Jesse Noller jnoller at gmail.com
Sat May 29 14:46:28 CEST 2010

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

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list