On 3/8/2010 6:14 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
P.J. Eby wrote:
I'm +1 on adding a nice task queuing system, -1 on calling it by any other name. ;-)
As Guido said, let's call the nice task queuing system "futures" and
I was confused by 'futures' also until Philip explained it as task-queue or task-pool, and hence also do not like it.
Since the examples in the PEP do *NOT* give example output, it was not clear to me whether execution or the termination thereof is ordered (queue) or not (pool). Looking more close, I gather that the prime results will be printed 'in order' (waiting on each even if others are done) while the url results will be printed 'as available'. Adding 'will print ...' and 'might print ...' outputs would help.
point people wanting a full-power asynchronous process model to Twisted
That could be done in the PEP to clarify its scope.
Terry Jan Reedy