GeezerVison

Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Jesse Noller wrote:
> > Georg kindly published the PEP I submitted last night to the PEP site:
> >
> > http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0371/
> >
> > This PEP includes some of the previous discussion on the processing
> > module's inclusion, and I hope clears up/clarifies some of the
> > goals/non goals and issues. I also included benchmark data and a link
> > to the code used for said benchmarks.
> >
> > I would like to renew the discussion now that "there is a PEP" to see
> > if there are any outstanding things people would like to get resolved.
> > I chose to continue to push it for 2.6 / 3.0 inclusion due to feedback
> > both here and elsewhere that people would rather see this in sooner in
> > some form, rather than later (i.e.: 2.7/3.1).
>
> +1 from me (under the 'multiprocessing' name, with the understanding 
> that some code duplication with other parts of the standard library 
> may still remain in 2.6/3.0).

+1 from me as well.

I think multiple-processes is over played as a concurrency solution in 
Python (where you need to marshal lots of data in and out, the overheads 
of multiple processes can be very expensive) - but it is a very good 
solution for some problems.

Michael Foord

>
> From a non-web programmer's point of view, it seems like even more of 
> a gain than standard library support for JSON ;)
>
> Cheers,
> Nick.
>


-- 
http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/
http://www.theotherdelia.co.uk/
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/
http://www.ironpython.info/
http://www.resolverhacks.net/