On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Jesse Noller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Jesse Noller wrote:
>>>
>>> I meant a cleaned version of the PEP - I still have docs and tests to redo
>>>
>> It would also be good if you could che
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jesse Noller wrote:
>>
>> I meant a cleaned version of the PEP - I still have docs and tests to redo
>>
> It would also be good if you could check Benjamin's patch on issue 3402 to
> give threading a PEP 8 compliant API and
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Benjamin Peterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Jesse Noller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'll have a cleaned version to you by end of day, and by day, I mean
>> by 10:00 EST :)
>
> Great! Please post that on the bug tracker when you'
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Jesse Noller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll have a cleaned version to you by end of day, and by day, I mean
> by 10:00 EST :)
Great! Please post that on the bug tracker when you're ready.
--
Cheers,
Benjamin Peterson
"There's no place like 127.0.0.1."
___
I'll have a cleaned version to you by end of day, and by day, I mean
by 10:00 EST :)
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've accepted your PEP. I think it still needs some clean-up and
> perhaps clarification of the agreement reached about API style, but
I've accepted your PEP. I think it still needs some clean-up and
perhaps clarification of the agreement reached about API style, but
there is nothing now that keeps you from implementing it! Hopefully
you'll make the beta release early next week.
--Guido
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Jesse Noll
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jesse Noller wrote:
>>
>> However, the flip side of this is that no one really "likes" the
>> threading API as-is, so putting the module into the standard library
>> with the matching API simply adds another "broken" API.
>
>
Jesse Noller wrote:
However, the flip side of this is that no one really "likes" the
threading API as-is, so putting the module into the standard library
with the matching API simply adds another "broken" API.
Provided threading gets a PEP 8 style API in 2.6 (which it looks like it
is going to
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> Sounds good. (Maybe you want to contribute a patch to threading.py?
>> Your implementation notes are important. It could be quite independent
>> from PEP 371.)
>
> I created issue 3042 as an RFE
Guido van Rossum wrote:
Sounds good. (Maybe you want to contribute a patch to threading.py?
Your implementation notes are important. It could be quite independent
from PEP 371.)
I created issue 3042 as an RFE to add PEP 8 compliant aliases to the
threading module (including the notes about how
Sounds good. (Maybe you want to contribute a patch to threading.py?
Your implementation notes are important. It could be quite independent
from PEP 371.)
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 3:33 AM, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jesse Noller wrote:
>>
>> Per feedback from Guido, the python-dev list
Jesse Noller wrote:
Per feedback from Guido, the python-dev list and others, I have sent
in an updated version of PEP 371 - the inclusion of the pyprocessing
module into the standard library.
URL: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0371/
New highlights:
* The module will be renamed to "multipr
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "Mike Klaas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> A cleaner way to effectuate the transition would be to leave
>> the camelCase API in 2.6 (for both modules), switch to PEP 8
>> in py3k (for both modules)
>
> +1
> That makes
x27;m
neutral on whether it makes sense to backport the new threading.py
APIs to 2.6.
--Guido
> Raymond
>
>
> - Original Message - From: "Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Mike Klaas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, Jun
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
I agree that the threading the the pyprocessing APIs should be PEP 8
compliant, but I think 2 APIs is almost worse than one wrong one.
So change them both to be PEP 8 compliant, and leave
aliases in both for existing code to use.
--
Greg
___
From: "Mike Klaas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A cleaner way to effectuate the transition would be to leave
the camelCase API in 2.6 (for both modules), switch to PEP 8
in py3k (for both modules)
+1
That makes good sense.
, and provide threading3k and multiprocessing3k modules in 2.6 that façade t
ginal Message -
From: "Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mike Klaas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 371: Additional Discussion
I'm curious why people thing that strict API compatibility i
I'm curious why people thing that strict API compatibility is
important at all. In my view, having the APIs be similar is really
helpful because it helps people quickly understand what you can do
with the new module. But I honestly don't expect anyone to take an
existing app using threading and tur
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Benjamin Peterson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Jesse Noller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Also - we could leave in stubs to match the threading api - Guido,
On 3-Jun-08, at 3:53 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Jesse Noller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Also - we could leave in stubs to match the threading api - Guido,
David
Goodger and others really prefer not to continue the "broken" API
of the
threading API
I agre
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Benjamin Peterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Jesse Noller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Also - we could leave in stubs to match the threading api - Guido, David
>> Goodger and others really prefer not to continue the "broken" API of
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Jesse Noller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also - we could leave in stubs to match the threading api - Guido, David
> Goodger and others really prefer not to continue the "broken" API of the
> threading API
I agree that the threading the the pyprocessing APIs should b
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Jesse Noller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also - we could leave in stubs to match the threading api - Guido, David
> Goodger and others really prefer not to continue the "broken" API of the
> threading API
>
+1 from me. Gives a transition plan for people to move ove
Benjamin Peterson gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Jesse Noller gmail.com> wrote:
> > What about also including a patch to fix the threading api to be pep 8
> > compliant?
>
> I doubt that will be accepted because of the closeness threading has
> to Java's APIs.
Is this real
Also - we could leave in stubs to match the threading api - Guido,
David Goodger and others really prefer not to continue the "broken"
API of the threading API
On Jun 3, 2008, at 5:43 PM, "Raymond Hettinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* The API will become PEP 8 compliant
Doesn't that kill
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Jesse Noller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about also including a patch to fix the threading api to be pep 8
> compliant?
I doubt that will be accepted because of the closeness threading has
to Java's APIs.
--
Cheers,
Benjamin Peterson
"There's no place like
What about also including a patch to fix the threading api to be pep 8
compliant?
On Jun 3, 2008, at 5:43 PM, "Raymond Hettinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* The API will become PEP 8 compliant
Doesn't that kill the intent that it's a drop-in replacement for
threading?
IMO, it is essentia
* The API will become PEP 8 compliant
Doesn't that kill the intent that it's a drop-in replacement for
threading?
IMO, it is essential that the API match the theading module, PEP 8 be damned.
Raymond
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python
2008/6/3 Jesse Noller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Per feedback from Guido, the python-dev list and others, I have sent
> in an updated version of PEP 371 - the inclusion of the pyprocessing
> module into the standard library.
>
> URL: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0371/
>
> New highlights:
> * The
Per feedback from Guido, the python-dev list and others, I have sent
in an updated version of PEP 371 - the inclusion of the pyprocessing
module into the standard library.
URL: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0371/
New highlights:
* The module will be renamed to "multiprocessing"
* The API w
30 matches
Mail list logo
