[issue29575] doc 17.2.1: basic Pool example is too basic

Joachim added the comment: I never proposed to add a second example, but to make the one example more meaningful. As a minimal solution, could we replace the numbers 3 (input data) and 5 (threads) by a slightly more plausible choice? Davin explained why numbers should be incommensurate. So

[issue29575] doc 17.2.1: basic Pool example is too basic

d be happy to consider adding a link to it in the documentation. -- nosy: +berker.peksag title: your closing of issue29575 -> doc 17.2.1: basic Pool example is too basic ___ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs

[issue29575] doc 17.2.1: basic Pool example is too basic

Davin Potts added the comment: When passing judgement on what is "too basic", the initial example should be so basic as to be immediately digestible by as many people as possible. Some background: All too many examples mislead newcomers into believing that the number of processes should (a)

[issue29575] doc 17.2.1: basic Pool example is too basic

Changes by Raymond Hettinger : -- nosy: +davin ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue29575] doc 17.2.1: basic Pool example is too basic

Camilla Montonen added the comment: Would you like to open a PR with a patch on GH? I think the docs could certainly do with another example for Pool. -- nosy: +Winterflower ___ Python tracker

[issue29575] doc 17.2.1: basic Pool example is too basic

New submission from Joachim: The »basic example of data parallelism using Pool« is too basic. It demonstrates the syntax, but otherwise makes no sense, and therefore is potentially confusing. It is blatant nonsense to run 5 processes when there are only 3 data to be treated. Let me suggest