On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 07:36:11 -0400, Dustin J. Mitchell wrote: > The responses have certainly highlighted some errors in emphasis in my > approach. > > * My idea is to propose a design PEP. (Steven, Dennis) I'm not at *all* > suggesting including uthreads in the standard library. It's a toy > implementation I used to develop my ideas. I think of this as a much > smaller idea in the same vein as the DBAPI (PEP 249): a common set of > expectations that allows portability.
Okay, point taken, I misunderstood your proposal. But my point still stands: since nobody except (possibly) you has used your uthreads library, what gives you confidence that the API you suggest is any good? Not just good, but good enough to impose that API on every other async framework in the standard library and possibly beyond it? If you have a good answer to that question, then it might be appropriate to propose such an API. (For what it's worth, consensus among the major async frameworks that your approach was a good idea would be a pretty good answer to that question.) -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
