STINNER Victor <vstin...@python.org> added the comment:
I suggest to close the issue and move the discussion to a place to discuss asynchronous ideas. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what it is proposed here. I understand that Nathaniel wants to add something like a new "asynchronous" mode in the io module which would make FileIO, BufferedReader and TextIOWrapper behave differently. IMHO it's a bad idea. The io module is designed for blocking I/O syscalls. Not only the implementation, but also the API. Non-blocking I/O requires a platform specific implementation for best performances, but that requires something like an event loop, and so unusual programming style like asyncio "await ...". I dislike the idea of having a single module for synchronous (blocking) and asynchronous (non-blocking) operations. IMHO asynchronous programming is so complex that it requires to develop a whole new module. Maybe new module could reuse io code. Like implement an asynchronous using io.TextIOWrapper, but its underlying buffer would be feeded and controlled by asynchronous code. The Python bug tracker is usually used for bugs or to implement a concrete proposal. Here I understand that it's more an idea at the design stage. I don't think that it's the best place to discuss it. I suggest to open a discussion on python-ideas list or a list about asynchronous programming (I looked for "async-sig", but it seems like the list is gone?). ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue32561> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
