Nick Coghlan wrote:
Jesse Noller wrote:
> Georg kindly published the PEP I submitted last night to the PEP site:
>
> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0371/
>
> This PEP includes some of the previous discussion on the processing
> module's inclusion, and I hope clears up/clarifies some of the
> goals/non goals and issues. I also included benchmark data and a link
> to the code used for said benchmarks.
>
> I would like to renew the discussion now that "there is a PEP" to see
> if there are any outstanding things people would like to get resolved.
> I chose to continue to push it for 2.6 / 3.0 inclusion due to feedback
> both here and elsewhere that people would rather see this in sooner in
> some form, rather than later (i.e.: 2.7/3.1).
+1 from me (under the 'multiprocessing' name, with the understanding
that some code duplication with other parts of the standard library
may still remain in 2.6/3.0).
+1 from me as well.
I think multiple-processes is over played as a concurrency solution in
Python (where you need to marshal lots of data in and out, the overheads
of multiple processes can be very expensive) - but it is a very good
solution for some problems.
Michael Foord
From a non-web programmer's point of view, it seems like even more of
a gain than standard library support for JSON ;)
Cheers,
Nick.
--
http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/
http://www.theotherdelia.co.uk/
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/
http://www.ironpython.info/
http://www.resolverhacks.net/
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
