On 29 Sep 2013 02:52, "Guido van Rossum" <gu...@python.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> It sounds like a reasonable approach to me. >> >> In terms of naming, would you consider "concurrent.asyncio"? When we created that parent namespace for futures, one of the other suggested submodules discussed was the standard event loop API. > > > Hm. I want the threading and event world to be very clearly separate and different, since accidentally combining them is disastrous. So the concurrent package is the *last* place where I want asyncio to live. (And I realize there is also some multiprocessing support in that package -- but it still uses threads to wait for things.)
Makes sense to me! Cheers, Nick. > > -- > --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
