[Python-Dev] PEP 492 vs. PEP 3152, new round (original) (raw)
Guido van Rossum guido at python.org
Sat Apr 25 00:23:07 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 ]
Sorry, when I wrote "future" (lower-case 'f') I really meant what Yury calls awaitable. That's either a coroutine or something with an await emthod.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Łukasz Langa <lukasz at langa.pl> wrote:
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
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20150424/c6c9f45a/attachment-0001.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 ]