[Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement

[Nick Coghlan]

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
---------------------------------------------------------------