[Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement

[Brian Quinlan]

On 26 May 2010, at 18:44, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

> Nick Coghlan writes:
>> On 26/05/10 13:51, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>
>>> People have been asking "what's special about this module, to  
>>> violate
>>> the BCP principle?"  There's nothing special about the fact that
>>> several people would use a "robust and debugged" futures module if  
>>> it
>>> were in the stdlib.  That's true of *every* module that is worth a
>>> PEP.
>>
>> The trick with futures and executor pools is that they're a  
>> *better* way
>> of programming with threads in many cases.
>
> and
>
>> However, given the choices of [...].  I'll choose the first option
>> every time, and my programs will be the worse for it.
>
> Again, nothing all that special about those; lots of proposed changes
> satisfy similar conditions.  I don't think anyone denies the truth or
> applicability of those arguments.  But are they enough?
>
> Really, what you're arguing is "now is better than never."  Indeed,
> that is so.  But you shouldn't forget that is immediately followed by
> "although never is often better than *right* now."

I've been trying to stay out of the meta-discussions but "*right* now"  
would be >6 months if it applies in this context.

If that is what "*right* now" means to you then I hope that I never  
have a heart attack in your presence and need an ambulance *right*  
now :-)

Cheers,
Brian