Brian Quinlan wrote: > > On 6 Mar 2010, at 08:42, Jesse Noller wrote: >> 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. > > It doesn't really matter to me. > > We can either update this PEP to propose the concurrent.futures name or > you can draft a more complete PEP that describes what other > functionality should live in the concurrent package.
I think a "concurrent.futures" name works - it gives the scoping desired by the folks with an finance background and gives us a bucket for future thread/process agnostic concurrency tools (such as a pools and message queues). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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
