New submission from Christopher Hunt <chrah...@gmail.com>:
Currently AbstractEventLoop.run_in_executor is specified as a coroutine, while BaseEventLoop.run_in_executor is actually a non-coroutine that returns a Future object. The behavior of BaseEventLoop.run_in_executor would be significantly different if changed to align with the interface . If run_in_executor is a coroutine then the provided func will not actually be scheduled until the coroutine is awaited, which conflicts with the statement in PEP 3156 that it "is equivalent to `wrap_future(executor.submit(callback, *args))`". There has already been an attempt in bpo-32327 to convert this function to a coroutine. We should change the interface specified in `AbstractEventLoop` to indicate that `run_in_executor` is not a coroutine, which should help ensure it does not get changed in the future without full consideration of the impacts. ---------- components: asyncio messages: 334109 nosy: asvetlov, chrahunt, yselivanov priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Specifying AbstractEventLoop.run_in_executor as a coroutine conflicts with implementation/intent type: behavior versions: Python 3.7 _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue35792> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
