On 9/18/07, Krishna Sankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The vagueness is deliberate, to keep the options open until we have > some form o convergence. Parallelism/concurrency is a vast and important > domain that I do not want to develop a hasty proposal. But I did want to > start thinking in terms of concrete proposals, not pontifying, hence the > "pragmatic" section.
As long as it's this vague it doesn't deserve to be called a PEP though. PEPs can't be vague, they must make specific proposals. As long as this is intentionally half-baked it belongs back in python-ideas and there's no point in pretending to be writing a "PEP". > Happy to hear that you are open to PVM changes. It will not be asked > unless and until we all are crisp about it. > Cheers > <k/> > > Guido van Rossum wrote: > > On 9/18/07, Krishna Sankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Folks, > >> As a follow-up to the py3k discussions started by Bruce and Guido, I > >> pinged Brett and he suggested I submit an exploratory proposal. Would > >> appreciate insights, wisdom, the good, the bad and the ugly. > >> > >> A) Does it make sense ? > >> B) Which application sets should we consider in designing the > >> interfaces and implementations > >> C) In this proposal, parallelism and concurrency are used in an > >> interchangeable fashion. Thoughts ? > >> D) Please suggest pertinent links, discussions and insights. > >> E) I have kept the proposal to a minimum to start the discussions and > >> to explore if this is the right thing to do. Collaboratively, as we > >> zero-in on one or two approaches, the idea is to expand it to a crisp > >> and clear PEP. Need to do some more formatting as well. > >> > > > > I'd say it is a little light on specific proposals. The only section > > that actually proposes anything is this: > > > > > >> Pragmatic proposal > >> ------------------ > >> May I suggest we embed two primitives in Python 3K: > >> A) A functional style share-nothing set of interfaces (and > >> implementations thereof) - provides the task parallelism/concurrency > >> capability, "small messages, big computations" as Joe Armstrong calls it[3] > >> B) A limited shared memory based model for data intensive parallelism > >> > >> Most probably this would be part of stdlib. While Guido is almost right > >> in saying that this is a (std)library problem, it is not fully so. We > >> would need a few primitives from the underlying PVM substrate. Possibly > >> one reason for Guido's position is the lack of clarity as to what needs > >> to be changed and why. IMHO, just saying take GIL off does not solve the > >> problem either. > >> > > > > Before I can meaningfully comment I think I'd like to hear more about > > what specifically you are thinking of. > > > > I don't mind the necessary changes to the PVM. I do like to see how > > this affects existing C extensions though. > > > > > > -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
