(original) (raw)

That's a good question. We \*could\* make it so that you can subclass Generator and instantiate the instances; or we could even make it do some structural type checking. (Please file a pull request or issue for this at github.com/ambv/typehinting .) But perhaps we should also change asyncio? What check are you talking about?

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:35 PM, Stefan Behnel <stefan\_ml@behnel.de> wrote:

Guido van Rossum schrieb am 17.04.2015 um 23:58:
\> The \`\`typing\`\` module defines the \`\`Generator\`\` type for return values
\> of generator functions. It is a subtype of \`\`Iterable\`\` and it has
\> additional type variables for the type accepted by the \`\`send()\`\`
\> method and the return type of the generator:
\>
\> \* Generator, used as \`\`Generator\[yield\_type, send\_type, return\_type\]\`\`

Is this meant to accept only Python generators, or any kind of object that
implements the coroutine protocol? I'm asking because asyncio currently
suffers from an annoying type check here, so I'd like to avoid that this
problem keeps popping up again in other places.

Stefan


\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
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/guido%40python.org

--

--Guido van Rossum (python.org/\~guido)