On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Tres Seaver <tsea...@palladion.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Jesse Noller wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Daniel Stutzbach >> <dan...@stutzbachenterprises.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Brian Quinlan <br...@sweetapp.com> wrote: >>>> import futures >>> +1 on the idea, -1 on the name. It's too similar to "from __future__ import >>> ...". >> >> Futures is a common term for this, and implemented named this in other >> languages. I don't think we should be adopting things that are common, >> and found elsewhere and then renaming them. > > - -1 to the name from me as well: it isn't "scoped" properly to make it > clear what the module is about. If they were inside a pacakge named > 'concurrency' or some such (as hinted by Jesse Noller, I think), the > clash would go away.
If people agree with this; do you feel the proposal of said namespace should be a separate PEP, or piggy back on this? I don't want to piggy back on Brian's hard work. Jesse _______________________________________________ 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
