[Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement

[Nick Coghlan]

On 28/05/10 09:52, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>> We can accept PEP 3148 by saying that we're happy to add the extra
>> namespace level purely for disambiguation purposes,
>
> If that's the only rationale for the namespace, it makes it
> sound like a kludge to work around a poor choice of name.

It's the right name though (it really is a futures implementation - I 
don't know what else you would even consider calling it). The problem is 
that the same word is used to mean different things in other programming 
domains (most obviously finance).

Resolving that kind of ambiguity is an *excellent* use of a package 
namespace - you remove the ambiguity without imposing any significant 
long term cognitive overhead.

Cheers,
Nick.

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