I'd like input from others, but maybe it's worth expanding the scope
to python-ideas? Not too many people read async-sig. (Or should that
be coroutine-sig? :-)
On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote:
>> I've heard people call it an "async def" too.
>>
>> I don't think it's quite as dramatic as you worry about. People also
>> talk about generators (not generator functions) and even though
>> there's a further ambiguity between the function and the type of
>> object it returns, we still get along.
>
> Hmm, I don't mean to be dramatic. Obviously the world will not end if
> we keep using "coroutine" as the standard term :-). I just think that
> calling them "async functions" (and "async function objects" when the
> distinction is important) would be a nice unambiguous win for pedagogy
> and clarity, and that it's worth grabbing those when you get the
> chance. "coroutine" says more about the history of how we got here
> than about what these things actually mean to a regular end-user;
> "async function" is so transparent that you can skip the vocab
> discussion and go straight to talking about how to use them.
>
>> There's also the @coroutine decorator.
>
> There's two of them, even: @types.coroutine and @asyncio.coroutine.
> I'm not really sure what the difference is -- I think at this point we
> could delete some code by making the latter an alias for the former?
> But for now they're still independent and I might be missing
> something.
>
> And unless I am missing something, these are only useful in rather
> unusual situations: either because you're trying to maintain
> compatibility with 3.4 (which I think will rapidly become irrelevant
> for most asyncio users, if it isn't already) or you're implementing
> your own trampoline (e.g. [1][2]). So even if we leave the decorators
> alone, it doesn't really stop us from switching to clearer terminology
> for day-to-day usage -- most people will never encounter @coroutine
> anyway.
>
> (For completeness: the other stdlib identifiers I see that mention
> "coroutine" are: sys.{get,set}_coroutine_wrapper, several functions in
> inspect, and asyncio.run_coroutine_threadsafe.)
>
>> If you have a specific piece of documentation in mind, let's talk --
>> maybe it's fine to change.
>
> Well, it's a basic concept that gets mentioned constantly throughout
> all discussions... For example, I count 29 instances in [3] and 53
> instances in [4]. Clearly it's useful to have a standard term for
> these things.
>
> -n
>
> [1]
> https://github.com/dabeaz/curio/blob/6166a54a731df59c15fe27791d1c6b048f09f941/curio/traps.py#L46
> [2]
> https://github.com/njsmith/async_generator/blob/fab4af987cb86c6db549131b66d3ab4c4e327a29/async_generator/impl.py#L13
> [3] https://docs.python.org/3/library/asyncio-stream.html
> [4] https://curio.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reference.html
>
> --
> Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org
--
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________
Async-sig mailing list
Async-sig@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/async-sig
Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
