I figured I'd throw it out here for initial feedback on the theory
that it'd be higher signal to noise, and then proceed to python-ideas
if the async aficionados seemed generally in favor.
On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote:
> 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)
--
Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org
_______________________________________________
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/
