Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 92.30% and project coverage change: -0.02 ⚠️

Comparison is base (5d88860) 94.88% compared to head (8862e02) 94.87%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1458      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   94.88%   94.87%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files          45       45              
  Lines        7471     7474       +3     
==========================================
+ Hits         7089     7091       +2     
- Misses        382      383       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

Came here via the sprint/Franck at the sprint.

How about Parallel(..., results=...), with possible values: immediate for "return results in any order as soon as they are ready", ordered for "return results in the order in which tasks were submitted" and complete for "return all results in order in which tasks were submitted when all tasks are ready". Could also use "unordered", "ordered" and "all" (or something?). I think main my comment is that I prefer results= over return_as=.

As @adrinjalali mentioned it could be worth at least considering adding an extra method for different output type. Something like (but the name can certainly be better),

joblib.Parallel(...).call_as_generator(delayed(sqrt)(i**2) for i in range(10)))

It also feels that something that returns a variable type depending on the input parameter is not great API wise, and would confuse type checkers. I mean between list and iterators of results it could still work. But if you want to add an iterator of future results later that's a completely different return type.

• return_type="list"/"generator" (or return_as?)
• return_order="as_submitted"/"as_completed" (or collection_order?)

with raise ValueError when return_as="list" and collection_order="as_completed" because it's useless.

At least it's very explicit. It's a bit verbose but I think I prefer this side of the tradeoff.

But if you want to add an iterator of future results later that's a completely different return type.

If we ever go into returning "future" or "promise" objects I think we should introduce a completely new API (and probably mimic that of concurrent.future / dask).

Some more online discussion later, we converge on return_as=list/generator/unordered_generator. I'll update the PR in this direction.

(About futures/promises, returning such objects is definitely not in the scope of what Parallel offers, the misunderstanding comes from bad wording from me early on, sorry about that.)

After discussion at the scikit-learn sprint, I also prefer the following:

• return_as="list"/"generator"/"unordered_generator"

This is explicit enough, technically correct and concise enough.

Merging as the failure on sklearn is not related to this PR.