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

Jeffrey Yasskin jyasskin at gmail.com
Sun May 23 01:43:41 CEST 2010

I think the PEP's overall API is good to go.

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Brian Quinlan <brian at sweetapp.com> wrote:

On 22 May 2010, at 23:59, R. David Murray wrote: If there is still discussion then perhaps the PEP isn't ready for pronouncement yet.  At some point someone can decide it is all bikeshedding and ask for pronouncement on that basis, but I don't think it is appropriate to cut off discussion by saying "it's ready for pronouncement" unless you want increase the chances of its getting rejected. Here are the new proposed non-documentation changes that I've collected (let me know if I've missed any): ...

I propose to rename the Future.result method to Future.get. "get" is what Java (http://java.sun.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/Future.html) and C++ (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2010/n3092.pdf section 30.6.6 para 12) use, and the word "result" doesn't seem particularly better or worse than "get" for our purposes, which inclines me to stay consistent.

We can discuss naming for all eternity and never reach a point where even half of the participants are satisfied.

Agreed. To reduce the length of the discussion, I'm not going to reply to counter-arguments to my proposal, but I think it'll be useful to Jesse if people who agree or disagree speak up briefly. I'll reply the other naming proposals in another message.

Jeffrey

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list