<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 15:36, Antoine Pitrou <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:solipsis@pitrou.net">solipsis@pitrou.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Le Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:54:33 -0500,<br>
Benjamin Peterson <<a href="mailto:benjamin@python.org">benjamin@python.org</a>> a écrit :<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">> 2011/8/10 Brian Curtin <<a href="mailto:brian.curtin@gmail.com">brian.curtin@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
> > Now that we have concurrent.futures, is there any plan for<br>
> > multiprocessing to follow suit? PEP 3148 mentions a hope to add or move<br>
> > things in the future<br>
><br>
> Is there some sort of concrete proposal? The PEP just seems to mention<br>
> it as an idea.<br>
><br>
> In general, -1. I think we don't need to be moving things around more<br>
> to little advantage.<br>
<br>
</div></div>Agreed. Also, flat is better than nested. Whoever wants to populate the<br>
concurrent package should work on new features to be added to it, rather<br>
than plans to rename things around.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree with flat being better than nested and won't be pushing to move things around, but the creation of the concurrent package seemed like a place to put those things. I just found myself typing "concurrent.multiprocessing" a minute ago, so I figured I'd put it out there.</div>
</div>