Issue 25675: doc for BaseEventLoop.run_in_executor() says its a coroutine, but it is not (original) (raw)

Issue25675

Created on 2015-11-19 21:56 by ealfie, last changed 2022-04-11 14:58 by admin. This issue is now closed.

Messages (3)
msg254939 - (view)	Author: Ezequiel Alfie (ealfie)	Date: 2015-11-19 21:56
Doc says: coroutine BaseEventLoop.run_in_executor(executor, func, *args) ...... This method is a coroutine. However, inspecting the code, I find that this function is not a coroutine. Also this function returns a Future instance, this fact should be mentioned in the doc.
msg259035 - (view)	Author: Ian Kelly (ikelly)	Date: 2016-01-27 17:21
The asyncio docs also have this note, so this is technically not a bug: Note: In this documentation, some methods are documented as coroutines, even if they are plain Python functions returning a Future. This is intentional to have a freedom of tweaking the implementation of these functions in the future. If such a function is needed to be used in a callback-style code, wrap its result with ensure_future(). Since the intention seems to be to document something that can be awaited without specifying the implementation, I think that these functions should be documented as returning awaitables. However GvR in python-ideas said: IMO [the docs] should be very clear about the distinction between functions that return Futures and functions that return coroutines (of either kind). I think it's fine if they are fuzzy about whether the latter return a PEP 492 style coroutine (i.e. defined with async def) or a pre-PEP-492 coroutine (marked with @asyncio.coroutine), since those are almost entirely interchangeable, and the plan is to eventually make everything a PEP 492 coroutine. Source: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.ideas/38045/focus=38046
msg308816 - (view)	Author: Andrew Svetlov (asvetlov) *	Date: 2017-12-20 21:09
It was always awaitable object, in Python 3.7 the method was converted into genuine coroutine.