Brian Quinlan wrote:
I think that Jesse was planning to add some functionality to this
namespace.
Even if that happens, the existing threading and multiprocessing
modules would remain outside of it.
You could have general thread pools that aren't related to executors
Yes, but it should be fairly obvious that the ones defined
in the futures module have to do with futures. Namespaces are
only a honking great idea if you actually let them do the job
they're designed for.
I thought that the specification would be difficult to follow without
examples to pave the way.
Well, for me, what happened was that I saw the examples and
thought "WTF is going on here?" Then I read the specification
to figure out how the examples worked.
It might be better to have a tutorial section preceeding the
specification section, containing explanation interspersed
with examples.
> I think that
idiomatic future use will end up looking similar to my examples.
Maybe, but code written for pedagogical purposes needs to
meet a particularly high standard of clarity. Remember that
the reader isn't yet familiar with the idioms, so idiomatic
code isn't necessarily going to be easy for him to follow.
* Is it possible to have more than one Executor active
at a time?
Of course.
That's good, but I don't think that the "of course" is at
all obvious, considering that things such as GUI event loops
generally can't be mixed easily.
--
Greg
_______________________________________________
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
