[Python-Dev] PEP 492 vs. PEP 3152, new round (original) (raw)
Łukasz Langa lukasz at langa.pl
Sat Apr 25 00:17:44 CEST 2015
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] PEP 492 vs. PEP 3152, new round
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] PEP 492 vs. PEP 3152, new round
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Apr 24, 2015, at 10:03 AM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
6. StopAsyncException What if we required
ait._anext_()to return a future?
On top of my previous response, one more thing to consider is that this idea brings a builtin Future back to the proposal, which has already been rejected in the "No implicit wrapping in Futures” section of the PEP.
PEP 492 manages to solve all issues without introducing a built-in Future.
-- Best regards, Łukasz Langa
WWW: http://lukasz.langa.pl/ Twitter: @llanga IRC: ambv on #python-dev
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20150424/43c2528a/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] PEP 492 vs. PEP 3152, new round
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] PEP 492 vs. PEP 3152, new round
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]