[Python-Dev] PEP 492 vs. PEP 3152, new round (original) (raw)

Ethan Furman ethan at stoneleaf.us
Fri Apr 24 20:03:14 CEST 2015

On 04/24, Yury Selivanov wrote:

On 2015-04-24 1:03 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:

Ditto for _aiter_ and _anext_. I guess this means that the async equivalent to obtaining an iterator through it = iter(xs) followed by for x over it will have to look like ait = await aiter(xs) followed by for x over ait, where an iterator is required to have an _aiter_ method that's an async function and returns self immediately. But what if you left out the await from the first call? I.e. can this work? ``` ait = aiter(xs) async for x in ait: print(x) With the current semantics that PEP 492 proposes, "await" for "aiter()" is mandatory. You have to write ait = await aiter(xs) async for x in ait: print(c)

As a new user to asyncio and this type of programming in general, 'await aiter' feels terribly redundant.

-- Ethan

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list