On 9/10/2012 7:36 AM, Dustin J. Mitchell wrote:
The responses have certainly highlighted some errors in emphasis in my approach.
* My idea is to propose a design PEP. (Steven, Dennis) I'm not at
*all* suggesting including uthreads in the standard library. It's a
toy implementation I used to develop my ideas. I think of this as a
much smaller idea in the same vein as the DBAPI (PEP 249): a common
set of expectations that allows portability.
That has been very successful.
* I'd like to set aside the issue of threads vs. event-driven
programming. There are legitimate reasons to do both, and the healthy
ecosystem of frameworks for the latter indicates at least some people
are interested. My idea is to introduce a tiny bit of coherence
across those frameworks.
I think many developers recognize that some improvment in coherence
would be a good idea. I occasionally read that *someone* is working on
common event loop approach, though it has not materialized yet.
I will need to take up the details of the idea with the developers of
the async frameworks themselves, and get some agreement before
actually proposing the PEP. However, among this group I'm interested
to know whether this is an appropriate use of a design PEP.
I think so.
> That's why I posted my old and flawed PEP text, rather than re-drafting
first.
I think you should do a bit of editing now, even if not a full redraft.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
