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

Brian Quinlan brian at sweetapp.com
Sun May 23 03:21:51 CEST 2010

On May 23, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:

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

Rename "executor" => "executer" -1 for consistency with Java.

-1 pending an explanation of why "executer" is better

Rename "submit" to "apply" "apply" focuses attention on the function object, while "submit" focuses attention, properly I think, on the fact that you're handing something to the executor to run. So -1.

-1

Rename "done" to "finished" "done" is nice and short, and I don't think "finished" or "completed" will be any less prone to people thinking the task actually ran. So -1.

-0

Rename "notfinished" to "pending" +0.5. Doesn't matter that much, but pending is used elsewhere in the proposal for this concept. On the other hand, "pending" could be thought to refer to the state before "running". Possibly "finished" should be renamed to "done" here, since it's described as '"finished", contains the futures that completed (finished or were cancelled)', which uses "finished" for two different concepts.

I think that using "finished" is bad terminology here.

So +1 to "finished" => "done". I don't have a preference for "not_done" vs. "pending".

Rename "FIRSTCOMPLETED" to "ONECOMPLETED" "ONECOMPLETED" could imply that the first result set must contain exactly one element, but in fact, if multiple tasks finish before the waiting thread has a chance to wake up, multiple futures could be returned as done. So -1.

A logician would probably call it "SOME_COMPLETED". What about "ANY_COMPLETED"? Though I think that "FIRST_COMPLETED"
still reads better.

Cheers, Brian

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list