[Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement

[Cameron Simpson]

On 24May2010 10:47, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen at xemacs.org> wrote:
| Brian Quinlan writes:
|  > If you are familiar with threads then writing a "good enough" solution  
|  > without futures probably won't take you very long. Also, unless you  
|  > are familiar with another futures implementation, you aren't likely to  
|  > know where to look.
| 
| That looks like an argument *against* your module, to me.  Why would
| people look for it in the stdlib if they're not looking for it at all,
| and specifically because anybody who would know enough to look for
| "something like" it is also able to devise a good-enough solution?
| You're describing a solution in search of a user, not a user in search
| of a solution, and it would appear to violate "not every three-line
| function" as well as TOOWTDI.

This might be a terminology problem. I think, above, Brian means "good
enough" to mean "looks ok at first cut but doesn't handle the corner
cases". Which usually means obscure breakage later.

I almost am Brian's hypothetical user. I've got a "FuncMultiQueue" that
accepts callables in synchronous and asynchronous modes for future
possibly-concurrent execution, just as the futures module does. I've
spent a _lot_ of time debugging it.

There's a lot to be said for a robust implementation of a well defined
problem. Brian's module, had it been present and presuming it robust and
debugged, would have been quite welcome.

Cheers,
-- 
Cameron Simpson <cs at zip.com.au> DoD#743
http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/

I am a Bear of Very Little Brain and long words Bother Me.
        - Winnie-the-Pooh