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

Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Wed May 26 15:33:03 CEST 2010

On 26/05/10 23:01, Brian Quinlan wrote:

thread, threading, Queue and multiprocessing do likely belong here, but moving them isn't likely to be worth the pain. Does it help to know that at least Jesse and I (and probably others) would like to see concurrent.pool added eventually with robust general purpose ThreadPool and ProcessPool implementations?

The specific reason the new package namespace was added was to help avoid confusion with stock market futures without using an unduly cumbersome module name, but I don't know how well the PEP explains that. It doesn't at all. Are these plans formalized anywhere that I can link to?

Just the previous lot of discussions. The main point that should be mentioned in the PEP is that "futures" on its own was ambiguous as to the applicable domain, but "concurrent.futures" was perfectly clear, without causing any readability problems the way a longer name could.

Moving the general purpose pools out to their own module was just an example that occurred to us as something else that could go in that package rather than a concrete plan for implementation.

Yes, we're setting ourselves up for inevitable questions as to why the existing modules are top level rather than part of this package, but the minimal pain response there would be to link to them from the package documentation with a note along the lines of "for historical reasons, some modules you might reasonably expect to find in this package are instead provided as top level modules".

Cheers, Nick.

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

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list