P.J. Eby wrote: > (Personally, I think it would be better to just drop the ambitious title > and scope, and go for the "nice task queue" scope. I imagine, too, that > in that case Jean-Paul wouldn't need to worry about it being raised as a > future objection to Deferreds or some such getting into the stdlib.)
This may be a terminology thing - to me futures *are* just a nice way to handle farming tasks out to worker threads or processes. You seem to see them as something more comprehensive than that. I agree the PEP should just target what the current implementation provides and put whatever scope limitations are needed in the preamble text to make that clear. 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
