multiprocessing is good enough for now,
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:30 AM, Diez B. Roggisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Phillip B Oldham schrieb:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Chris Rebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> No, it will definitely not.
>>
>>> From your statement (and I'm te
Phillip B Oldham wrote:
Will Python 3 be ...
The features of Python 3.0 are fixed; there are just a few remaining
bugs to fix before the final release. Download the release candidate or
look at the online manual at
http://docs.python.org/dev/3.0/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/
Phillip B Oldham schrieb:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Chris Rebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, it will definitely not.
From your statement (and I'm terribly sorry if I've taken it out of
context) it would seem that such features are frowned-upon. Is this
correct? And if so, why?
Yo
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Chris Rebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, it will definitely not.
>From your statement (and I'm terribly sorry if I've taken it out of
context) it would seem that such features are frowned-upon. Is this
correct? And if so, why?
--
Phillip B Oldham
[EMAIL PROT
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Phillip B Oldham
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Will Python 3 be "stackless"? Or, rather, will it have any features
> similar to stackless' microthreads and channels?
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
Will Python 3 be "stackless"? Or, rather, will it have any features
similar to stackless' microthreads and channels?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
