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

Jeffrey Yasskin jyasskin at gmail.com
Wed May 26 18:25:53 CEST 2010

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:57 AM, Greg Ewing <greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:

Having read through the PEP again, here are my thoughts.

* I'm bothered by the term "future". To my mind, it's too long on cleverness and too short on explanativeness. I think that the standard library is no place for cuteness of naming. The name of a stdlib module should reflect its functionality in some straightforward and obvious way. If I were looking for a thread pool or process pool implementation, the word "future" is not something that would spring readily to mind.

Please go re-read the older threads on this. For example, http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-March/098279.html.

* It seems unnecessarily verbose to tack "Executor" onto the end of every Executor subclass. They could simply be called ThreadPool and ProcessPool without losing anything.

+0

* I don't see a strong reason to put this module inside a newly-created namespace. If there were a namespace called "concurrent", I would expect to find other existing concurrency-related modules there as well, such as threading and multiprocessing. But we can't move them there without breaking existing code.

Again, please re-read the older thread (which you participated in). For example, http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-March/098200.html.

Jeffrey

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list