Greg Ewing wrote: > There's a lot more to this than syntax. The oddities > surrounding Python generators are mostly due to their > "one-level-deep" nature, i.e. they're not full coroutines. > And there are deep implementation reasons for that.
Does this mean that Py3K intends to reuse major portions of Python 2.x's implementation? If Py3K intends to break backwards compatibility, doesn't this mean that if a simpler and more inclusive, more general asynchronous mechanism than generators is possible, then there should be no qualms about dropping or supplementing the latter? Or would this be enough of a difference that it would make for 'a different language'? I had the impression that replacing old abstractions that have acquired cruft with better new ones was one of the main goals of Py3K. Not that I don't find generators cool, but there seem to be some pretty basic asynchronous stuff (blocking on I/O) that they do not address as elegantly as one would like. _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
