Kyle Stanley <aeros...@gmail.com> added the comment:
> So, I just had an interesting idea... what if ThreadPool.run() returned a > Task instead of a coroutine object? After having some time to think this over, I prefer the current behavior. I don't think there would be significant enough improvement from returning a Task instead, and it would likely result in an overall performance loss. Also, as a general update on the project, I'm close to being ready to open a PR to implement asyncio.ThreadPool. I finished the basic implementation and added a decent number of new tests to ensure its functionality. Here's my current progress: https://github.com/python/cpython/compare/master...aeros:asyncio-threadpool I just need to work on adding the new documentation, and more specifically finding a good place for it in the current asyncio docs. Do you have any ideas for that, Yury? I figured that you might already have a preference in mind. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue32309> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
