(original) (raw)

On May 5, 2015 2:14 PM, "Guido van Rossum" <guido@python.org> wrote:
\>
\> In the PEP 492 world, these concepts map as follows:
\>
\> - Future translates to "something with an \_\_await\_\_ method" (and asyncio Futures are trivially made compliant by defining Future.\_\_await\_\_ as an alias for Future.\_\_iter\_\_);
\>
\> - "asyncio coroutine" maps to "PEP 492 coroutine object" (either defined with \`async def\` or a generator decorated with @types.coroutine -- note that @asyncio.coroutine incorporates the latter);
\>
\> - "either of the above" maps to "awaitable".

Err, aren't the first and third definitions above identical?

Surely we want to say: an async def function is a convenient shorthand for creating a custom awaitable (exactly like how generators are a convenient shorthand for creating custom iterators), and a Future is-an awaitable that also adds some extra methods.

-n