On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 15:36, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:

Le Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:54:33 -0500,
Benjamin Peterson <benjamin@python.org> a écrit :

> 2011/8/10 Brian Curtin <brian.curtin@gmail.com>:
> > Now that we have concurrent.futures, is there any plan for
> > multiprocessing to follow suit? PEP 3148 mentions a hope to add or move
> > things in the future
>
> Is there some sort of concrete proposal? The PEP just seems to mention
> it as an idea.
>
> In general, -1. I think we don't need to be moving things around more
> to little advantage.

Agreed. Also, flat is better than nested. Whoever wants to populate the
concurrent package should work on new features to be added to it, rather
than plans to rename things around.

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.