On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Jesse Noller <jnol...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
A simple renaming of futures to concurrency.futures seems easy enough to swallow. (Though I haven't kept track of what other modules the PEP proposes.) -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) _______________________________________________ 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
